On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/10/2024 3:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 5:46:00 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: * > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,* *Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement. * I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be used. AG *The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. * CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance. Then, along the same axis, one of the pair is measured as spin UP, and there's a correlation with the other pair member measuring spin DN, so conservation of spin is satisfied. So there's a mystery; how can the correlation exist when the electrons are far beyond causal distance? Is this correct, or does Brent have the "exact" solution and now awaits for his Nobel prize? AG That's an oversimplified version, one that would be satisfied in classical mechanics. Try reading up on the experiment. Brent Please cease your BS; it's unbecoming. Where is my description of Bell experiments oversimplified? More important, experiments in classical mechanics do not, and could not imply influences at distances exceeding causality, other than in Newtonian gravity which we know is wrong. It's just a good approximation for weak fields, such as within the solar system.That's the core of the mystery -- apparent influences at distances exceeding causality -- which you claimed is explained "exactly" by some Hilbert space vector, or are you now backtracking on that claim? AG -- 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/1f8fd71b-8cd1-4747-b1c5-26e30fac89dan%40googlegroups.com.
