On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/10/2024 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 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 Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in Hilbert space? AG I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?" Little green men? Brent Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an answer, and neither do you. I don't need an answer. I have one. You're the one who asked a question but can't even say what an answer would be like. *My initial thought is that pairs of entangled electrons might just appear to be separated. Perhaps our concept of space is lacking in something fundamental. But this is just my speculation. However, it seems simplistic to sweep the problem under the rug, so to speak, and claim it's beena solved. AG* Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's going on. I think it's pretty damn good evidence. *Here you are quite mistaken; mistaking the map for the territory. Some people think that calling the situation as "influencing" evades the core issue, which is why the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances exceeding causality. I've seen videos of physicists struggling with this issue, and never heard of anyone other than you, who claimed this problem has been solved. AG* *BTW, my description of Bell experiments was deliberately simplistic since I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived, although I am aware that statistics are measured/gathered along three axes. AG* If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG It did. Correct predictions have appeared in many articles *Where? I don't recall any links you claim to have offered. But like I said, in this situation correct predictions aren't sufficient IMO, to explain the results. AG * 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/7ad65d07-020c-4a64-836e-97b0345ad60cn%40googlegroups.com.
