On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:06:42 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:01 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The trouble with your fundamentalist assumption is that it does not work
>>> in real physics. You have only to give a plausible dynamical model of how
>>> this works for the Aspect experiment, say, and we will accept that you have
>>> a point. But you are unable to do this. I would lay long odds on the fact
>>> they you will be unable to do it, even given an infinite amount of time and
>>> computing power.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> People can go though life believing whatever they want.
>>
>
> I see that you can't do it. Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Bruce
>
I've basically lived my life believing what I want, I think.
I'm not trying to *convince* anyone of anything.
One thing I might try to convince people of:
*Physics is fiction.*
Vic Stenger would have said "Physics is models".
There are always alternative models, and new ones likely coming in the
future.
To find *reality in a model* (to make truth claims in the vocabulary of a
model) is a form of religious fundamentalism.
@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/3af9d421-4802-4e98-bfe0-d8ce7e14940e%40googlegroups.com.
