I wrote: If you want to run in horizontal vortex mode in order to increase
mixing and keep current above 15 amps, simply place vertical vanes all the
way across the channel near the pump.
The vanes would have to be fairly long in the flow direction, and located
at the elevation of the feeder
At 1:39 PM 10/18/4, Keith Nagel wrote:
[snip bunch of good stuff]
... I
also seem to remember that what initially puzzled researchers
is that the particles all deflected an equal distance, rather
than distribute based on their (random) orientation as they
entered the magnet. Right there the 3D
At 1:39 PM 10/18/4, Keith Nagel wrote:
[snip bunch of good stuff]
... I
also seem to remember that what initially puzzled researchers
is that the particles all deflected an equal distance, rather
than distribute based on their (random) orientation as they
entered the magnet. Right there the 3D
Hi Horace.
You write:
The only way the final outcome of any such
process can affect the 16 possible outcomes is to change their frequency.
This is true no matter how many dimesions from which those final outcomes
are chosen. This is true even if an infinite number of angels ride with
each
At 3:06 PM 10/19/4, Keith Nagel wrote:
I may be being boneheaded here, help me out. I thought that I showed
by adding extra dimensions it was possible to do exactly what you
describe above, changing the outcome probabilities for the three visible
axis of measurement. If I didn't, show me where I
At 3:06 PM 10/19/4, Keith Nagel wrote:
As regards angels flying along with the particles,
you'll have to put that question to Thomas or RC,
they seem to have a direct line to God.
As you must have sensed, the choice of the angels metaphor indeed was not
directed to you, but I think it does
I posted in a hurry earlier as I was leaving the house. Some corrections
follow.
Flow is about 154 ft^3/sec, thus channel is running about 5.5 feet deep.
If you want to eliminate horizontal vortices, run a vertical vortex and
thus run the pump at lower amperage, simply add some horizontal vanes
The problem with explaining an Aspect style experiment by hidden variables
boils down to explaining 3 results which, taken together, appear to
eliminate the possibility of hidden variables and require faster than light
communicaton. These are:
1. Alice and Bob each use 3 mutually orthogonal
Hi Horace.
you write:
Something looks a bit magical about 4 dimensions with the all-4-spins-alike
combinations getting a special treatment, though there is no apparent
physical justification.
Yes, I was hoping four would suffice. It's interesting to me that
adding more dimensions drives the
Unless someone else has something to add, this draft pretty much wraps up
the revisiting of Bell's theorm. A general analysis using probability
weighting for each possible spin combination is included below.
EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #5)
Assume, as did Einstein, Podolski
Horace Heffner posted;
Yes that's right. However, when the experiment is done there is always a
when Alice and Bob choose the same axis (A and
D, B and E, or C and F) they get a perfect match: 800 out of 800. The
other axes they get only a 1 in 4 match.
Hum, is this proof that the observer
At 7:01 AM 10/17/4, thomas malloy wrote:
Horace Heffner posted;
Yes that's right. However, when the experiment is done there is always a
when Alice and Bob choose the same axis (A and
D, B and E, or C and F) they get a perfect match: 800 out of 800. The
other axes they get only a 1 in 4
EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
Assume, as did Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen (EPR), the state of conjugate
entangled particles is set at the time of the creation of the conjugates,
at the moment of entanglement. EPR maintained that entangled particles in
effect carry hidden
of only 3
quantum variables coming from ( other than our
much beleagured common sense ).
K.
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
EPR
I had a horrific error in Table 6. It should have been as follows:
a b matches
- - ---
A D 4/4
A E 0/4
A F 2/4
B D 0/4 36 possibilites
B E 4/4 20 matches
B F 2/4 match probability 5/9
C D 2/4
C E 2/4
C F 4/4
Table 6 - Expected results based on Table 5
There is in fact no way to
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:08:54 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
There is in fact no way to select from the rows of table 5 to obtain a
probability of 0.5 in Table 6. This is, in fact, what Bell's inequality
says. This was Bell's point.
[snip]
I'm probably missing something,
At 10:12 AM 10/17/4, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:08:54 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
There is in fact no way to select from the rows of table 5 to obtain a
probability of 0.5 in Table 6. This is, in fact, what Bell's inequality
says. This was
I wrote: We now see that it is possible to obtain dependent entries that
yield less than a 0.5 probability of a match, thus violating Bell's
inequality. The imaginary experimental results shown in Table 3 can
actually be obtained experimentally via any stochastic model designed to
converge the
Assume, as did Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen (EPR), the state of conjugate
entangled particles is set at the time of the creation of the conjugates,
at the moment of entanglement. EPR maintained that entangled particles in
effect carry hidden variables, or an equivalent of a computer program,
EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #2)
Assume, as did Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen (EPR), the state of conjugate
entangled particles is set at the time of the creation of the conjugates,
at the moment of entanglement. EPR maintained that entangled particles in
effect carry hidden
20 matches
Mail list logo
