• astonishing correlations

    From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 18 11:21:50 2023
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper.  It's easy/hard;  non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.

    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector.  Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.

    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions.  Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.

    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.

    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I)  Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random.  And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.

    II)  Considering the pair, things become more interesting:
    i)  When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii)  When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.

    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector. Therefore, you may
    assume that a particle contains an internal state,
    readable by the detector. No information is given
    regarding the set of possible states.

    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    obvious hint: there IS something peculiar.
    another hint:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Tue Sep 19 10:02:11 2023
    On 19-Sept-23 4:21 am, RichD wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper.  It's easy/hard;  non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.

    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector.  Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.

    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions.  Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.

    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.

    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I)  Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random.  And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.

    II)  Considering the pair, things become more interesting:
    i)  When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii)  When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.

    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector. Therefore, you may
    assume that a particle contains an internal state,
    readable by the detector. No information is given
    regarding the set of possible states.

    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.


    obvious hint: there IS something peculiar.
    another hint:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

    --
    Rich


    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon Sep 18 20:11:40 2023
    On September 18, Sylvia Else wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector. Therefore, you may
    assume that a particle contains an internal state,
    readable by the detector. No information is given
    regarding the set of possible states.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.

    <wooooosh!>

    It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.

    obvious hint: there IS something peculiar.
    another hint:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Tue Sep 19 13:57:12 2023
    On 19-Sept-23 1:11 pm, RichD wrote:
    On September 18, Sylvia Else wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector. Therefore, you may
    assume that a particle contains an internal state,
    readable by the detector. No information is given
    regarding the set of possible states.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.

    <wooooosh!>


    I don't think so. You're just trying to cover up your blunder.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue Sep 19 11:25:17 2023
    On September 18, Sylvia Else wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the detectors.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.

    <wooooosh!>

    I don't think so. You're just trying to cover up your blunder.

    Most excellent! Your juvenile response highlights the instructional value. Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is measured... does that remind you of anything?

    The problem is likely too tricky, no one will solve it. I'll offer a few hints.

    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do
    they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages,
    is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This
    is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.

    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar -

    Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Sep 20 10:31:06 2023
    On 20-Sept-23 4:25 am, RichD wrote:
    On September 18, Sylvia Else wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the detectors.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.

    <wooooosh!>

    I don't think so. You're just trying to cover up your blunder.

    Most excellent! Your juvenile response highlights the instructional value. Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is measured... does that remind you of anything?

    The problem is likely too tricky, no one will solve it. I'll offer a few hints.

    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages, is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.

    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the
    given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar -

    Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    --
    Rich

    So what? It still bears no resemblance to the work that earned the Nobel
    prize. Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,
    showed that a hidden variable solution does not work.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue Sep 19 23:40:03 2023
    On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 02:31:11 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Sept-23 4:25 am, RichD wrote:
    On September 18, Sylvia Else wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the detectors.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    Yes, but only because what you describe is not equivalent to the
    experiments that earned the Nobel prize.

    <wooooosh!>

    I don't think so. You're just trying to cover up your blunder.

    Most excellent! Your juvenile response highlights the instructional value. Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is measured... does that remind you of anything?

    The problem is likely too tricky, no one will solve it. I'll offer a few hints.

    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages, is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.

    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the
    given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar -

    Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    --
    Rich
    So what? It still bears no resemblance to the work that earned the Nobel prize. Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,

    You're really funny, lady, to believe such an impudent lie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Sep 20 02:54:02 2023
    On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 19:21:52 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.

    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.

    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.

    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.

    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.

    II) Considering the pair, things become more interesting:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.

    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector. Therefore, you may
    assume that a particle contains an internal state,
    readable by the detector. No information is given
    regarding the set of possible states.

    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    i.e. considering II (i). Does anything strike you as peculiar?

    obvious hint: there IS something peculiar.
    another hint:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

    --
    Rich

    You don’t need to waste your time or maths trying to explain any quantum magic as seen in the 1972 Freedman- Clauser style experiment you refer to
    (And described in the wiki Bells Theorum experiment page.)
    What Bell, Podolski, Einstein, Kim et al or any of the rest of them didn’t realise was that light isn’t a photon. Because ALL the observations
    from ALL of these quantum “eraser” style experiments
    can be explained classically using only wave light of various different polarisation states arriving at each of the different detectors. And
    being matched afterwards by the coincidence counter. The source
    always emits either unpolarised or circularly polarised
    light. But the detectors only receive plane polarised light. Either by
    simple polarised filters or by reflection at mirrors. Unless
    for instance in the quantum eraser style experiments the master detector, usually called D(0), gets fully circular polarised light which is then matched via
    the coincident counter to each of the plane polarised detectors to produce magic spooky effects. Which are in fact simple matching of polarised
    states using accounting methods at the coincidence counter.

    So to put it simply: If one detector gets only the horizontal polarised light from
    the source...only detectors receiving horizontally polarised light will
    be shown as magical spooky ‘coincident detections’ by the coincident counter.
    No need for nutty Bells theorum or QT.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 20 11:39:54 2023
    On September 19, Sylvia Else wrote:
    Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two
    particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is
    measured... does that remind you of anything?
    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do
    they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the
    particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages, >> is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This
    is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.
    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the
    given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar -
    Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    It still bears no resemblance to the work that earned the Nobel prize.

    You missed the landing pad by so many miles, you splash
    landed near the Titanic. Good job.
    This simple example, followed to the end, leads DIRECTLY to
    Bell's theorem.

    Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,
    showed that a hidden variable solution does not work.

    So you can regurgitate something your read in a pop science
    book. Impressive.
    Regurgitation isn't derivation.
    Echoing isn't understanding.

    "exercise for the student", "work it out for yourself",
    "take up the challenge"... do these phrases mean anything
    to you? Evidently we have someone who doesn't understand
    why teachers assign homework!

    This is a physics board, presumably there are subscribers
    who wish to delve into this topic Solving this puzzle, which
    appears mundane, gives insight into Bell's accomplishment.

    You have all the answers? Great. First, define "hidden
    variable" and "does not work". Then, via this example,
    show that a hidden variable solution does not work.
    SHOW YOUR WORK.

    PS "hidden variables" is mushy, I prefer nonlocal reality, as
    more descriptive.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Sep 20 12:06:05 2023
    On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:39:56 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    On September 19, Sylvia Else wrote:
    Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two >> particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is
    measured... does that remind you of anything?
    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do >> they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the
    particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages,
    is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This >> is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.
    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the
    given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar - >> Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    It still bears no resemblance to the work that earned the Nobel prize.
    You missed the landing pad by so many miles, you splash
    landed near the Titanic. Good job.
    This simple example, followed to the end, leads DIRECTLY to
    Bell's theorem.
    Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,
    showed that a hidden variable solution does not work.
    So you can regurgitate something your read in a pop science
    book. Impressive.
    Regurgitation isn't derivation.
    Echoing isn't understanding.

    "exercise for the student", "work it out for yourself",
    "take up the challenge"... do these phrases mean anything
    to you? Evidently we have someone who doesn't understand
    why teachers assign homework!

    This is a physics board, presumably there are subscribers
    who wish to delve into this topic Solving this puzzle, which
    appears mundane, gives insight into Bell's accomplishment.

    You have all the answers? Great. First, define "hidden
    variable" and "does not work". Then, via this example,
    show that a hidden variable solution does not work.
    SHOW YOUR WORK.

    PS "hidden variables" is mushy, I prefer nonlocal reality, as
    more descriptive.

    --
    Rich

    I like "extra-local" because of course classically only all
    the local is included directly in the middle.

    Of course in any old quantum mechanics it still is a "hidden variables".

    Then it sort of seems most usual in "adiabatic", and "nonadiabatic",
    whether "governed under impulse classical" and "ungoverned under
    impulse classical". I.e., most usual classical dynamics, are framed
    in one or the other of adiabatic and nonadiabatic, it seems.

    It does get into "there are laws of large numbers", including,
    "there are various large number laws whether there is infinity or not".

    Similarly for adiabatic and nonadiabatic, for example, is
    "these are solids and these are gases, with liquids in
    the middle", as then with "plasma is substance and
    a state of matter".

    I.e. "most all superclassical motions are classical analogs",
    of an ideal "particle in a gas" or "displacement in a solid".

    Of course the extra-local is arbitrarily _contrived_.
    It's mostly "information, and information, what
    intelligence on information arises at configurations,
    physics is an open system, that maximize a path
    to potential, least action lever".

    I.e., "entropy has both definitions", "is entropy is
    conserved then if it is created then it doesn't always
    increase", has entropy and information is often
    "most fundamental".

    Then it's contrived to mostly make for "particle-wave duality",
    that being "the most obviously counter-intuitive and
    counter-sensible thing, that a particle's opposite is a wave
    and a wave is opposite particle, in concept", expressing
    dynamics in change, as crossing finite and discrete.
    I.e., the most usual "extra-local" concept, in physics,
    is the "particle-wave, duality", about complementary duals,
    with all their analogs, besides a "least, last action".

    I.e. "physics is an open system: it's least action, not last action".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Sep 21 09:45:50 2023
    On 21-Sept-23 4:39 am, RichD wrote:
    On September 19, Sylvia Else wrote:
    Let's see, there's reference to John Bell, and the Nobel... we have two
    particles which interact, then separate, then an ambiguous property is
    measured... does that remind you of anything?
    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do
    they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the
    particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis. What are these messages, >>> is this insoluble? Not at all: 3 switch positions, 2 colors, the particle's state
    represents a specific instruction... how many states, what are they? This >>> is easy, use binary, it's CS 101.
    That's the first step. The next step is the tricky part. Eventually, with the
    given numbers, which model real reality, it leads to something peculiar - >>> Anyone who solves it, kudos! You have derived Bell's theorem. If not,
    take consolation, it eluded the entire physics community for 20 years.

    It still bears no resemblance to the work that earned the Nobel prize.

    You missed the landing pad by so many miles, you splash
    landed near the Titanic. Good job.
    This simple example, followed to the end, leads DIRECTLY to
    Bell's theorem.

    Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,
    showed that a hidden variable solution does not work.

    So you can regurgitate something your read in a pop science
    book. Impressive.
    Regurgitation isn't derivation.
    Echoing isn't understanding.

    "exercise for the student", "work it out for yourself",
    "take up the challenge"... do these phrases mean anything
    to you? Evidently we have someone who doesn't understand
    why teachers assign homework!

    This is a physics board, presumably there are subscribers
    who wish to delve into this topic Solving this puzzle, which
    appears mundane, gives insight into Bell's accomplishment.

    You have all the answers? Great. First, define "hidden
    variable" and "does not work". Then, via this example,
    show that a hidden variable solution does not work.
    SHOW YOUR WORK.

    PS "hidden variables" is mushy, I prefer nonlocal reality, as
    more descriptive.

    Ah, changing the terminology - a sure sign of a crank.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Thu Sep 21 15:58:19 2023
    On September 20, Sylvia Else wrote:
    Bell's analysis, and the subsequent experimental verification,
    showed that a hidden variable solution does not work.

    So you can regurgitate something your read in a pop science book.
    Regurgitation isn't derivation.
    Echoing isn't understanding.
    PS "hidden variables" is mushy, I prefer nonlocal reality, as more descriptive.

    Ah, changing the terminology - a sure sign of a crank.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

    You're fun.

    PS Re 'crank' - the term refers to one who DENIES the conventional
    wisdom. Here, I DEMONSTRATE the conventional wisdom. Deny,
    demonstrate... these fine distinctions are muddling indeed. Your
    confusion is understandable.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Sep 23 17:10:45 2023
    On September 18, RichD wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair, things become more interesting:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?

    Assuming anyone is interested in this topic...

    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do
    they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the
    particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis.

    So we postulate that the particles contain instructions.
    3 switch positions, and 2 colors ==> a particle contains 3 bits,
    one for each position. A bit dictates the color, R/G, for the
    corresponding position. Therefore 8 possible states, thus:
    RRR
    RRG
    ...
    GGG

    Each pair must carry identical states, in order to achieve II (i).
    The states are uniformly distributed, per the observations.

    So far, so mundane, nothing interesting. Now the trick: there's
    a vital piece of data missing from the original note, call it (III).
    The student must experience this insight, to see its relevance.
    Strictly speaking, it's unnecessary to provide this information,
    it's easily derived.

    III) Considering only the pair of bulbs, ignoring the switches,
    there are 4 possible color states. Obviously, from (I) and (II),
    these are uniformly distributed.

    Put I, II, and III together, using freshman level combinatorics,
    one can discover something startling, Nobel worthy -


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Hughes@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 25 05:48:15 2023
    On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 01:10:48 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    On September 18, RichD wrote:
    This one is inspired by recent discussion of John Bell's
    paper. It's easy/hard; non-obvious, yet simple once you see
    the solution.
    Given a pair of identical detectors, spaced far apart.
    In between, a gun, which fires a pair of particles, one
    at each detector. Each detector holds a bulb, which
    flashes red or green upon receiving a particle.
    It also holds a switch, with 3 positions. Prior to each
    trial, the switch is set to an arbitrary position, randomly,
    and independently of the other detector.
    There exists no physical connection between the detectors.
    You run 1000 trials, and observe the following:
    I) Considering each detector in isolation, the bulb
    flashes red/green, 50/50, with no apparent pattern,
    it appears completely random. And no discernible
    relation to the switch setting.
    II) Considering the pair, things become more interesting:
    i) When both switches are set to the same position, the
    bulbs always flash the same color.
    ii) When they are set differently, there is no apparent relation
    between the colors.
    There is no communication channel between the
    detectors. However, a particle constitutes a possible
    channel, from gun to detector.
    How do you explain the operation of this apparatus?
    Does it seem plausible and practical, in principle?
    Assuming anyone is interested in this topic...
    II (i) is the vital point. No connections between the detectors, how do
    they coordinate their outputs? There must be messages carried by the particles, that's the only reasonable hypothesis.
    So we postulate that the particles contain instructions.
    3 switch positions, and 2 colors ==> a particle contains 3 bits,
    one for each position. A bit dictates the color, R/G, for the
    corresponding position. Therefore 8 possible states, thus:
    RRR
    RRG
    ...
    GGG

    Each pair must carry identical states, in order to achieve II (i).
    The states are uniformly distributed, per the observations.

    So far, so mundane, nothing interesting. Now the trick: there's
    a vital piece of data missing from the original note, call it (III).
    The student must experience this insight, to see its relevance.
    Strictly speaking, it's unnecessary to provide this information,
    it's easily derived.

    III) Considering only the pair of bulbs, ignoring the switches,
    there are 4 possible color states. Obviously, from (I) and (II),
    these are uniformly distributed.

    Put I, II, and III together, using freshman level combinatorics,
    one can discover something startling, Nobel worthy -


    --
    Rich

    Well, the first thing I need to explain is that no particle has wavelike properties. A particle is a particle is a particle.
    The wavelike behaviour stems from the wave nature of spacetime, actually, the wave nature of time.
    Think about the emission of photons from any light sources anywhere. We get waves of photons, (and don't start telling me I shouldn't think of photons as discrete particles, that's BS).
    Richard Feynman said it as it is, "Light comes in lumps", so if you argue then you are arguing with Feynman and good luck with that.
    Where was I, oh yes, photons are emitted in waves, but why?
    Well, the emission of a single photon is an event.
    The emission of two photons is two events.
    The emission of many photons is many events.
    Therefore, if photons are emitted in waves, of many photons interspersed with few or zero photons, then the rate of events is wavelike.
    I'll say that again -

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)