[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:24 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I am quite able to articulate them.  From the article, the three properties are:

* Detectable with spin up at 0 degrees but not at 45 degrees.
* Detectable with spin up at 45 degrees but not at 90 degrees.
* Detectable with spin up at 0 degrees but not at 90 degrees.

All three of these depend on the angle of a particle's spin, which is
one property.  That is their connection, and why they are not
independent.  (The other particle's spin is 90 degrees apart, and thus
is dependent on this one property as well.)

Also, I already debunked "any physicist since 1964".  That you
continue to use such an inflated absolute suggests you are refusing to
rationally evaluate my counterpoints.  That would explain your math
errors (see below).

>>> 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?

No.  I have accepted that, for the purposes of this analogy, there is
some undefined thing meaning we have 1 red and 1 blue ball, never 2
red nor 2 blue.  To go through how quantum entanglement works means we
have to discuss actual particles, not analogies.

(And, BTW, nice job totally dodging the fact that your objection that
we didn't know the other ball was blue was completely shut down.)

For all your hyperbole, I hope you will at least accept as already
proven that particles are, at least in part, waves in 3 dimensional
space.  These waves have orientations with regard to any 2D plane,
such as might host a slit in front of a detector.

When 2 particles are entangled, they come out at right angles to one
another.  Which is to say, whatever angle one of them is at, the other
will be 90 degrees off.  One of them takes all of the energy (or
whatever you wish to call it) in one orientation, leaving none in that
orientation for the other - but all of the energy (or whatever you
wish to call it) in the other orientation is left for the other
particle.  (This is perhaps slightly incorrect phrasing, insofar as it
implies one particle is active and the other is passive, which is not
the case.)

> 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.

The "some reason" stems from your formulation of the problem, which is
that there is an equal chance of all possible cases.  You gave the
following possible cases for a ball that is blue:

* Blue, heavy, nonradioactive
* Blue, heavy, radioactive
* Blue, light, nonradioactive
* Blue, light, radioactive

That is 4 cases, therefore if we know a ball is blue and therefore
that it is one of these cases - and that is all we know about it, we
haven't weighed it or taken a Geiger counter to it - then there is a
1/4, or 25%, chance of each one of these cases.

You kept insisting until recently that, if we knew a ball was blue,
all 8 cases - including the 4 red cases - were still possible for that
ball.

Even in just the snippet above, you again violate the knowledge space
the moment you say "if the other package is heavy": you claim that
because there's a 25% chance of each of the blue cases if a ball is
blue, there's a 25% chance of each of the blue-heavy cases if a ball
is blue and heavy.  In other words, you are claiming that 1/4 (the
blue-only case) = 1/2 (the blue-heavy case).

It is not me who is in disagreement with "every physicist since 1964".
It is you who is in disagreement with almost every mathematician since
the formalization of probabilities.  (Though there are doubtless a few
who have made the same mistake.)

>> 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

...when we were talking about whether argument from authority was a
logical fallacy.  Further, you say that my view that 1/4 != 1/2 is an
odd view?

Right, this conversation is over.  I will ignore any further response
you have on this topic.  Reply so you can have the last word, if that
makes you feel good.  You can not convince me with self-contradictions
and word twistings, and apparently I can not convince you with simple
logic, but hopefully I have at least given a plausible, non-weird
explanation of quantum entanglement to the rest of the list.

To anyone on this list who is not John Clark: have I explained quantum
entanglement well enough?  If not, what specifically (other than "but
it's not weird") would you like to see elaborated upon?

Spike, you were going to follow up with something?