[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Nov 24 22:40:07 UTC 2016


I don't think the Extropian list is working properly and I don't think
people who aren't on Gmail are seeing our conversation.

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​
> Put another way: there are 2 chances in 8 the other ball is blue and
> ​ ​
> heavy if you know nothing about the first ball.  The fact that you
> ​ ​
> know the first ball is red, and therefore that the other ball is blue,
> ​ ​
> changes this to 2 chances in 4 (the 4 blue cases) the other ball is
> ​ ​
> blue and heavy.


​Well that pretty much settles the matter, you're wrong. You say above
​that
the probability should be 1 chance in 2, quantum mechanics says it's 1
chance in 3,  and when Bell's experiment is actually performed the results
say the correct answer is indeed 1 chance in 3. So quantum mechanics is
right and you are wrong. If you have a problem with that blame the universe
not me.

And you haven't explained how the correlations I described between people 2
billion light years apart could work or how hidden variables could make the
machine I wrote about work.


>
>
>> ​>​
>> Do
>> ​ ​
>> you
>> ​ ​
>> seriously
>> ​ ​
>> think you are the first to see something clearly that all physicists
>> since1964 have
>> ​ ​
>> been confused about, or do you think it's possible that maybe just maybe
>> it is you that is
>> ​ ​
>> confused
>> ​​
>> ?
>
>

​> ​
> I am not the only one who has seen this.  It is not the case that "all
> physicists since 1964" have been in lockstep agreement on this.


​There was massive disagreement ​on how to explain this, and many of these
explanations are no longer viable due to recent experimental results.
However there is little or no disagreement about what quantum mechanics
predicts, what the experimental results are, or in the very very strong
feeling that results are weird.


​> ​
> if one assumes that all
> ​ ​
> quantum entanglements are programmed at their start - which would seem
> ​ ​
> to preclude the possibility of free will,


​Free will is neither possible nor impossible because free will is
gibberish.​

​

 J​ohn K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161124/91a94077/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list