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