"Mike Dubbeld" wrote in message
...

"Terry Wilder" wrote in message
...

"Mike Dubbeld" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the links. Nick Herbert Quantum Reality goes over the
Non-Local experiment better than any I have seen so far. In fact,
most
books ASS ume you will take their word for it and if they read their
own
material would discover that they explained nothing. The question
everybody has is 'weren't the 2 particles polarity determined the
instant of separation and who cares how far they travel if they
were?'
But Herbert clearly shows how the experiment produced a FTL
non-local
effect. There are still lots of people that want to say the
polarities
were fixed at separation all over the web. Last night I started
reading
The Non-Local Universe by Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos. Also
Bohm's
Wholeness and Implicate Order. Bohm published in 1980 - 2 years
prior to
the Alain Aspect test results.

Mike Dubbeld


"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...


wrote:
Perhaps some of these experiments were carried out under false
pretense?

The experiments were all vetted for design and equipment and have
been
replicated. The most impressive was an experiment done in Europe
by
Weihe which shows correlations between entangled particles at
distances
of over 10 km. There is no doubt that the delay in setting the
polarizers was quites sufficient.

The experiments are kosher.

See: http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1067 6953&dopt=Abstract

This is a long URL and you will have to cut and paste this one.

The bottom line is that if local realism has not been disproved,
it
has
been brought into sharp question.

The experiments keep getting better and better. They close more
(possible) loopholes and the results are consistent. QM wins and
Bell's
Inequalities are violated. No one has yet shown a defect in the
derivation of Bell's inequalities for locally realistic systems.
But
one, never knows. Bell revealed a defect in von Neumans proof of
the
completeness of Quantum Theory. Maybe Bell made a mistake, but it
seems
unlikely.

Bob Kolker




"Weren't the two particles polarities determined at the instant of
separation" is not the same question as
"Weren't the two particles polarities determined to be "paired" at
the
instant of separation" are two completely different questions. Thus
there is
nothing new here.

Well, I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you do not believe in
Non-locality. You better find out why exactly you do not because it is a
fact and has nothing to do with the initial state of the particles. I
tried to make it clear that there are lots of people that think they
explain non-locality but in fact only leave the reader thinking of them
as incredibly stupid. The reader is forced to believe that the state of
the particles is in fact the key factor and non-locality is not true.
You need to find a source that is not an idiot brain to explain it to
you. I must have read about 7 accounts some of which were big names and
I shook my head in total disgust at how ignorant their treatment of the
subject was. They all confirmed their own beliefs in non-locality and
stressed its reality to the reader. But they fail completely to
demonstate how the Alain Aspect and others have demonstrated it to be a
fact. They ASS ume you will somehow take it on faith that what they say
is true -egoism to the max.

I recommend Nick Herbert Quantum Reality who actually DOES make it clear
how the initial state of the particals at separation is irrelevant. You
are simply playing with words above. The rest of the world is basically
trying to figure out what to do now having accepted non-locality. I
strongly advise you to patch up this understanding you have. Today it is
not a question of if non-locality is true or not. It is a question of
making sense of it in terms of the rest of physics.

Mike Dubbled






Next thing you'll be promoting these wacko FLT theories. The act of
observation has always preserved the consistency. The "main question" is
whether a many-world interpretation can be circumvented.