<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Adrian Tymes </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:atymes@gmail.com" target="_blank">atymes@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I already debunked "any physicist since 1964". </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="4">The list has been a little unreliable lately so I must have missed the post where you showed that the majority of scientists, or a significant minority of them, or even one tenured professor of physics, says that the violation of Bell's inequality could have been predicted from common sense and classical physics and is no big deal. That post sounds fascinating, please resend it. I want to see it because in 1935 Einstein and Rosen wrote a reductio ad absurdum proof that quantum mechanics must be incomplete; they proposed a thought experiment similar to Bell's that would produce an absurd result if quantum mechanics was right, so they reasoned it couldn't be right. In 1935 the technology wasn't good enough to actually do the experiment, but it was 50 years later and guess what, the absurd result actually occurred. If Einstein had known he would have been shocked by those results, I am shocked too, but you are not.</font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><span class="gmail-">><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">></div> </span>But you<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>only know that if one is red the other must be blue<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>because you've taken<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>quantum entanglement as a given, </font><span style="font-size:large">and</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">quantum entanglement is exactly what is weird! How does</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">it</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">work?</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">
<br>
</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>No. I have accepted that, for the purposes of this analogy, </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Analogy my ass. As I said before, replace the packages with photons of undetermined polarization and replace the X Ray machine, scale and geiger counter with 3 sunglass lenses set at angles 45 degrees apart and it's the real deal. </font></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>To go through how quantum entanglement works means we<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>have to discuss actual particles, not analogies</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Exactly, I could not have said it better myself. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">So explain it. Explain how quantum entanglement works without violating common sense or classical physics. </font></div></div><div><font size="4"> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>When 2 particles are entangled, they come out at right angles to one<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>another. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Yes but there are an infinite number of right angle pairs, what angle were the two photons at before either encountered a filter? When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a filter there are only 2 things that can happen, it passes through it or it is blocked by it, and there is always a 50% chance of either possibility. And this is true for ANY angle you set the filter at! People talk about horizontal and vertical polarization but the names are misleading, the horizontal can be any line you want it to be, from 0 to 359.999..., and whatever line you pick the vertical is exactly 90 degrees from it. And both photons must respect your choice regardless of how old they are or how far apart they have become. </font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If at random you set the sunglass lens filter at degree X and the undetermined photon makes it through (and as I said there is ALWAYS a 50% chance of that happening) then we say the photon is no longer undetermined and is polarized at exactly a X angle, and we also know that if the photon's entangled brother also encounters a filter set at degree X there is a 100% chance it will get through, there is a 0% chance it will get through a filter </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">set at X+90 degrees</font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> and a 50% chance it will make it through a filter set at X+ 45 degrees. And this is true even if the 2 photons were born 10 billion years before anybody set up any filters and the 2 photons are now 20 billion light years apart. And incidentally if the first photon had been blocked by the filter set at degree X (a 50% possibility) then its brother photon must be at exactly a X+90 angle.</font></div></font></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></span></div><font size="4">The big mystery in all this is WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT DEGREE X?? You could have rotated the sunglass lens filter at any angle but whatever angle you picked had an<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>effect on its distant brother photon. So either<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>10<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>billion years ago when the 2 photons were made they knew that one day one of them would encounter your filter set at angle X and behaved accordingly, or the photons had no polarization at all until one of them made it through<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>your filter and then the photon instantaneously told its brother 20 billion light years away to behave as if it is polarized at exactly the X degree you picked. I don't know about you but I find that weird. As the great Niels Bohr<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>said "Anyone who is not<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".</font><br> </div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>whatever angle one of them is at, the other<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>will be 90 degrees off. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">True, but the weird thing is nature seems to allow you to determine what that "whatever angle"</font></div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> is, even if the 2 photons were first made in a distant </div><font color="#545454"><span style="line-height:18.2px">Quasar</span></font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font color="#545454" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:18.2px"> 10 billion years before you were born and are now separated by 20 billion light years. </span></font></div></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>You kept insisting until recently that, if we knew a ball was blue,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>all 8 cases - including the 4 red cases - were still possible for that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>ball.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">I still insist that the 2 balls were picked from a pile of 8 not 4, it was you not me who said it was 4 and I was showing the consequences of that insistence.</font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>you again violate the knowledge space<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the moment you say "if the other package is heavy": you claim that<br>
because<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> [...]</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I claim that because it's part of the question, namely "what is the probability the other package is heavy?" To calculate the probability you must figure out both the ways the package could be heavy and the ways it could be light.</div> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>...when we were talking about whether argument from authority was a<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>logical fallacy. Further, you say that my view that 1/4 != 1/2 is an<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>odd view?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">That is a odd question that I don't understand so I have no answer.</font></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Right, this conversation is over. I will ignore any further response<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>you have on this topic. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Spoken like a courageous intellectual hero. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>