home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.physics.research      Current physics research. (Moderated)      17,516 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 15,567 of 17,516   
   ben6993@hotmail.com to All   
   Re: Two questions about Bell's theorem   
   22 Feb 17 15:32:05   
   
   On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 8:04:38 PM UTC, Nicolaas Vroom   
   wrote:   
   > On Thursday, 16 February 2017 20:32:43 UTC+1, ben...@hotmail.com   
   > wrote:   
   > ....   
   > > In Lecture 5, Susskind does not really break   
   > > Bell's Inequality because he (and QM) messes too much with the   
   > > integer measurements by fractionalizing them.   
   >   
      
   > IMO the issue is not so much if a specific experiment is in   
   > agreement   
   > with Bell's theorem as described above.   
   > The issue is if the mathematical description of the behaviour of   
   > two   
   > (entangled) electrons is in agreement with the outcome of actual   
   > experiments.   
   > In Lecture 5 Susskind uses complex numbers to describe the   
   > physical  reality. IMO (I guess) other mathematical equations   
   > are also possible   
   > to describe the same. What ever you do the results of the   
   > predictions   
   > should be in accordance with observations.   
   > Computer simultions in general are not enough if not supported   
   > by (additional) observations.   
   >   
   > Nicolaas Vroom.   
      
   I agree that the maths must agree with the experimental   
   observations and I  need to know more about the   
   experimental results.   
      
   The 2015 Delft experiment only used 245 pairs of particles which   
   does not seem enough, by itself, to sustain a belief in   
   experimental observations breaking an inequality, whatever the   
   result's p value is (significant but not exceedingly so). That   
   experiment was trying to simultaneously close loopholes so I   
   guess that is why the number of pairs was small.   
      
      
   One experiment reported sig levels at about 20 sigma.  But   
   only 5% of the pairs were captured.   
      
   Susskind's QM formulae do not convince me at all that he has   
    broken the inequality as his result matched mine which was   
   based on hidden variables.  And the hidden variables method   
   did not break the inequality as the integer nature of A and B   
   measurements were compromised in a way that cannot be done   
   in a real experiment.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca