On 11/9/2024 6:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> wrote:
/>>> Why do you characterize the explanation
of the possible insufficiency of our concept
of space, a NON-local hidden variable?/
*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years
away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet
it still affected you then that affect was
non-local, because that's what "non-local"
means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum
Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were
betting I would bet not.*
/> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision.
Please re-write it./
*No.*
>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?
Obviously.
You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but
instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG
Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference
frame; and goes in either direction depending on the
reference frame. Which is a good reason for supposing no
information can be transmitted FoL.
Brent
That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of
an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,
I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it
does have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.
and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know
that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.
The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from
the beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value
in Hilbert space.
Yes, I am aware of that. AG
Nothing "traveled" between them.
So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going
on. AG
We do know exactly what's going on. We get the empirically
correct prediction for every experiment. It's just not a nursery
story about little balls. Five hundred years ago someone with
your attitude would be demanding to know what spirit caused the
measuring instrument needle to move. You've just gotten used to
mathematical explanations involving little balls bouncing around
so you don't question Newtonian mathematics. You need to update
your intuition.
Brent
Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's
predict it?
Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?
Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;
No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.
namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than
*exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context
you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference
to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG
An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.
Brent
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26fac391-a863-4158-aa32-7e3942ad891en%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26fac391-a863-4158-aa32-7e3942ad891en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8247b78a-6ff0-4fd4-bda5-f53a49dbfbc9%40gmail.com.
