On 11/11/2024 5:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
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.
Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone
knows what's going on.
I think it's pretty damn good evidence.
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
Brent
*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results
puzzled the experimenters. *
*I call B.S. on that. Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly
what they expected. Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden
variable theories were right. What's your reference?
*
*Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate explanation, but
clearly didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to close ostensible
loopholes,*
*Those were loop holes that would have allowed communication between the
Alice and Bob measurements, whereas the QM prediction was independent of
communication. That's why it was important to close the loop holes.
Brent
*
*such as the usual causality by information being transferred at light
speed. But the puzzling result persisted, so they did experiments
where a pair of entangled entities were separated beyond causal
distance. Why so great efforts to close loopholes when they had those
Hilbert space vectors, which according to you, Brent, solves the
problem "exactly"? What do you know, that generations of experimenters
had no knowledge of? 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/2c360f8b-40ec-434b-ac7a-ed8cbe55741fn%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c360f8b-40ec-434b-ac7a-ed8cbe55741fn%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/de3fc4ba-3025-4e1a-bcf1-bfb862e326e1%40gmail.com.
