On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 12:06:23 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
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 Your words; "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?" *Oh, I get it. TY. The mysteries are solved by familiarity. IOW, if you look long enough at something you don't understand, the mysteries disappear? And if I can't solve the mystery -- possible faster than light behavior -- I'm obtuse. You're in line for a Nobel. Let me be the first to congratulate you. I suggest you go argue with Bruce. IIRC, he thinks QM is non local. 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/800e7a21-d1e5-4bef-bfce-505f5f0982f3n%40googlegroups.com.
