On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the >>>>>>> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Correctly, I assume. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on >>>>>>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials >>>>>> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that >>>>>> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain >>>>>> EPR >>>>>> when you can do it very simply anyway? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And how can it be done very simply? >>>>> >>>>> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric >>>> (for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons). >>>> >>> >>> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR. >>> >>>> >>>> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the >> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus >> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter >> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at >> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a >> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that >> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation >> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals / >> non-locality). >> >> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an >> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of >> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically >> assume it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons). >> > > Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist > That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory>onwards). It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
