[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 18:10:57 UTC 2016


On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:


> ​> ​
> I already debunked "any physicist since 1964".


​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.

>
>
>> ​>​
>>  But you
>> ​ ​
>> 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! How does
>> ​ ​
>> it
>> ​ ​
>> work?
>
>
> ​> ​
> No. I have accepted that, for the purposes of this analogy,


​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.    ​


> ​> ​
> To go through how quantum entanglement works means we
> ​ ​
> have to discuss actual particles, not analogies


​Exactly, I could not have said it better myself. ​
So explain it.​ Explain how quantum entanglement works without violating
common sense or classical physics.


> ​> ​
> When 2 particles are entangled, they come out at right angles to one
> ​ ​
> another.


​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.

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
set at X+90 degrees
​ 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.

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
​ ​
effect on its distant brother photon. So either
​ ​
10
​ ​
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
​ ​
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
​ ​
said "Anyone who is not
​ ​
shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".


> ​> ​
> whatever angle one of them is at, the other
> ​ ​
> will be 90 degrees off.


​True, but the weird thing is nature seems to allow you to determine what
that "whatever angle"​
​ is, even if the 2 photons were first made in a distant
Quasar
​ ​10 billion years before you were born and are now separated by 20
billion light years.

​> ​
> 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.
>

​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.​

>

> ​> ​
> you again violate the knowledge space
> ​ ​
> the moment you say "if the other package is heavy": you claim that
> because
> ​ [...]
>

​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.


>
​> ​
> ...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?
>

​That is a odd question that I don't understand so I have no answer.​

​> ​
> Right, this conversation is over.  I will ignore any further response
> ​ ​
> you have on this topic.


​Spoken like a courageous intellectual hero. ​


​John K Clark​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161126/ed99f3a9/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list