[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

Fri Nov 25 21:24:24 UTC 2016

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 
> The "three properties" are explicitly different pairings of rotation,
>  
> with obvious connections.

Connections that are not obvious to me, connections that are not obvious
to any physicist since 1964, but connections that are obvious to you that
you are apparently unable to articulate. Somebody is certainly wrong, maybe
you're right,
your insight is real
 and everybody else is wrong, or maybe something else is going on.

>
>> > 
>> There is nothing equivalent to a cosmic Monty saying "the
>>  
>> other ball was picked only from the blue ones".
>
>
> > 
> There is: the fact that we have a priori knowledge that only one will
>  
> be red and one will be blue, and then the scan that shows the first
>  
> ball is red.
>

But y
ou
only know that if one is red the other must be blue 
because you've taken quantum entanglement as a given,
and 
quantum entanglement is exactly what is weird! H
ow does
it
 work? The guy who picked the packages out of a pile of 8 had no idea what
was inside
any of 
them, they were
all 
wrapped
 in a opaque covering
a billion years before
and 
a billion light years away, he just picked 2 packages at random
;
and you waited another billion years before you unwrapped your package. So
why
did

he NEVER pick 2 packages that are red
,
or 2 packages that are heavy
,
or 2 packages that are radioactive?
 How could he be so discriminating even if he wanted to? In the Monty
Hall problem the additional information that allowed you to improve your
odds of winning the car came from Monty, but in the quantum case where does
that information come from? If it's from Monty then Quantum Monty Hall is
weird.

And I don't understand your probabilities. You X ray your package, you see
it's red, if you accept quantum entanglement you know the other package is
blue, so if the other package is heavy it must be blue heavy and
radioactive or blue heavy and nonradioactive. For some reason you claim
there is a 50% chance of
one
 of these
possibilities
 happening, that would mean a 25%
chance 
of it being blue heavy and radioactive

and a 25% chance of it being

blue heavy and nonradioactive.

But suppose before you Xrayed

your package
I made
 2 copies of your package and
sent

them
 to 2 other people (actually quantum mechanics says it's impossible to
clone the quantum state of a particle
,
but that itself is also weird
because it hints that things are not realistic 
and
the no cloning theorem 
cannot
 be derived from classical physics so let's not get into that now) . I give
one copy
to 
Alice and she decides she will test her's for radioactivity, she finds it
to be nonradioactive so if she uses your logic
she concludes there is a 
25%
chance

the other ball is
 red

heavy and radioactive

and a 25% chance it
is
blue heavy and radioactive. I give the other copy to Bob and he decides to
weigh his package, there is a 50% chance he will find

it

heavy and a 50% chance he will find it light.  I ask all 3 of you to give
me probabilities that the other package is heavy.

So let's summarize:

You say there is a 50% chance  the other package is heavy. (either blue
heavy and radioactive  or blue heavy nonradioactive both with equal
probability)

Alice also says there is a
50% chance  the other package is heavy.
 ( either red heavy and radioactive or blue heavy and radioactive both
with equal probability)

Bob
says there is a
50% chance  the other package is heavy.
 ( blue heavy and radioactive, red heavy radioactive , blue heavy
nonradioactive , red heavy nonradioactive, with all 4 having equal
probability )

Something doesn't add up. An outside observer looking at all 3 would say
there is a  ( 50 +50 +50) 150% chance the other ball is heavy, but it gets
worse,
if instead the
original question was 
 "is the other ball light?" then using the same logic we would conclude
there is
also 
a
150
% chance the other ball is light.  Probabilities have to add up to 100%,
if not then a mistake has been made.

You might protest and say the mistake is the 3 tests were not independent
so I can't just add probabilities like that. Well maybe so but if so it's
your responsibility to explain the nature of the connection between them
and, as I proved in a earlier post by showing exactly how to build a
machine that classical physics says can't be built, if the world is
realistic then whatever the nature of those mysterious connections they
can't be local.

> 
> I find Wikipedia, at least, a credible
>  
> source on many topics.
>

So do I, but I can find nothing in it supporting your odd views about
probability, nor can I find anybody who thinks the violation of Bell's
inequality is just what you'd expect if classical physics ruled the
universe instead of quantum physics and is no big deal.

John K Clark 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161125/3e82c19e/attachment.html>