On 11/13/2024 7:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Anything faster than light is instantaneous in
some reference frame; and goes in either direction
depending on the reference frame. Which is a good
reason for supposing no information can be
transmitted FoL.
Brent
That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither
member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin
before measurement,
I know you mean no fixed spin direction before
measurement, but it does have a spin because when you
measure it you never get zero spin.
and that when one of a pair is measured, the other
seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived
separation distance.
The the way to look at is that there was only one spin
state from the beginning, when the pair was created.
They shared this value in Hilbert space.
Yes, I am aware of that. AG
Nothing "traveled" between them.
So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell
is going on. AG
We do know exactly what's going on. We get the
empirically correct prediction for every experiment.
It's just not a nursery story about little balls. Five
hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be
demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring
instrument needle to move. You've just gotten used to
mathematical explanations involving little balls
bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian
mathematics. You need to update your intuition.
Brent
Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because
ME's predict it?
Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly
predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?
Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;
No you should update your intuition so it conforms the
currently most accurate known theory.
namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less
than *exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact,
in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of
thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow
dispositive of the mystery. AG
An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to
your prejudices.
Brent
Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which
supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results
since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in
Hilbert space? AG
I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict
every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than
in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my
question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the
mystery?" Little green men?
Brent.
For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains
I did NOT acknowledge that. You seem deliberately obtuse. These
"mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity. If you feel Bell experiments
are mysterious I challenge you to name some possible solution to the
mystery.
Brent
(implied by Bell experiments) despite the fact that QM correctly
predicts the results of every experiment, I'd like your opinion or
speculation of the nature or content of this mystery. TY, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a2175a2-9fb0-4091-90f7-944503602a78n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a2175a2-9fb0-4091-90f7-944503602a78n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a6780c0-8c15-4430-be53-ade223c5f22d%40gmail.com.
