On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 8:20:28 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 6:06:48 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:42 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 8:20:07 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> . All you have to do is come up with the dynamics of the retrocausal >>>> mechanism that explains the Aspect experiments. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I did: *The reflective path integral w/logical variables*. >>> >> >> That is not the Aspect experiment. >> >> >> You are condemned as a charlatan by your silence on the important issue. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Of course I'm a charlatan. I've never claimed to be anything else. >>> >>> What are you? >>> >> >> Someone interested in physics......to the exclusion of unevidenced dogma. >> >> Look, Price has been banging on about retrocausal explanations of >> violations of the Bell inequalities for 30 or more years. And before that, >> there have been many years of similar ideas, such as Cramer's transactional >> interpretation and so on. On the surface, these ideas might seem plausible >> and attractive. But the fact is that even after all this time, they have >> succeeded in persuading only a few weak-minded individuals. Now why might >> that be? My explanation is that these ideas have never been applied to give >> convincing dynamical explanations for anything. In fact, if you try to >> apply retrocausal ideas to the Aspect experiment, you rapidly run into >> insuperable difficulties, and are forced to conclude that retrocausality >> can give only classical correlations -- the result that Lawrence alluded to >> some time ago. >> >> Bruce >> > > The only thing that can persuade me into thinking there is some classical > under-carriage to quantum mechanics is an experimental result. Theoretical > arguments or models etc do little for me. Since the dawn of the quantum > revolution, say 1927, there have been arguments for hidden variables, > retrocausality, tachyons and so forth as a classical substructure that > makes sense of Bertelsmann's (if I remember the name right) socks. Nothing > has ever come any of this, but meanwhile to nonlocal features of QM have > mounting evidence. If an experiment can show that nonlocality is an > illusion with some hidden variable etc then after dealing with some > cognitive dissonance I will accept that. > > LC >
There are several physicists who adopt Many Worlds. *Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct* Posted on June 30, 2014 by Sean Carroll http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/ So tell me:* Is there an experiment that proves the existence of Many Worlds?* If not, why does the Physics Gestapo descend on the retrocausal people and not the many-worlds people? @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/1802033c-0415-4e24-a3b4-c98f46f70d2f%40googlegroups.com.
