On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:23:36 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the
>>>>> probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a
>>>>> pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in
>>>>> thinking they can get around it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal
>>>> models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*
>>>>
>>>
>>> You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an
>>> experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday
>>> superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be
>>> logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but
>>> in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on
>>> polarizing sunglasses.
>>>
>>>
>>>> *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996
>>>> ('Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that
>>>> you need is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the
>>>> following constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the
>>>> spins are going to be measured, the probability that the particles have
>>>> opposite spin is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and
>>>> H."
>>>> Price notes that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence
>>>> assumption.My problem with this has been that such a condition does not
>>>> specify any plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works,
>>> that is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it
>>> through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2. For example
>>> if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that
>>> translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through
>>> the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is
>>> true Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to
>>> 66.666%. But 3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So
>>> local hidden variables are as dead as a doornail.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>> Religious fundamentalism.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell
> inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one
> polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the
> photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a
> third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like
> nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails
> would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the
> photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by
> attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a
> violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a
> "quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with one
> photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure there
> are not some other statistical effect at work between photons.
>
> LC
>
Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden
variables, and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and
p(X,D) is the joint distribution, then it assumes
p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D)
an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption.
@philipthrift
--
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 on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/965dcba8-01f4-4766-81ac-73da693e14cb%40googlegroups.com.
