Funny --
Physicists have to eat their words sometimes. Just ask Isaac.

From Nick Herbert Quantum Reality ---

'The unruly nature of unmediated action has moved physicists from
Galileo to Gell-Mann to unanimously reject non-local interactions as a
basis for explaining what goes on in the world. No one has so vehemently
expressed physicists' distaste for non-local interactions as Sir Isaac
Newton:



"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum
without the mediation of anything else. is to me so great an absurdity,
that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty for thinking, can ever fall into."



'Given his antipathy for non-local forces, Newton was somewhat
embarrassed by his own theory of gravity. If a non-local force is "so
great an absurdity," how does the sun's gravity manage to cross millions
of miles of empty space to hold the Earth in its orbit? Concerning the
actual nature of gravity, Newton wisely held his tongue. "Hypothesis non
fingo," he declared. "I frame no hypotheses." Quantum Reality Nick
Herbert p213



'Physicists today share Newton's belief that the world is tied together
by strictly local connections. All presently known interactions can be
explained in terms of only 4 fundamental forces (strong, weak,
electromagnetic, and gravitational). In every case these forces act as
if they are mediated by fields. Since quantum theory has blurred the
once sharp distinction between particle and field (both are quantumstuff
now) we can equally well say these local forces are mediated by the
exchange of particles.' p213 Quantum Reality Nick Herbert



Actually I prefer the phrase Voodoo to Non-locality....... (its shorter


(you know - you stick something here and something acausal happens many
miles away... Is that what then mean when they say 'if it was up your
ass you would know where it was'....)



I also have a story about a butterfly flapping its wings causing a
Chaos - ops I mean hurricane potentially in the US.....



Mike Dubbeld

Mike Dubbeld wrote:

Actually I prefer the phrase Voodoo to Non-locality....... (its shorter


(you know - you stick something here and something acausal happens many
miles away... Is that what then mean when they say 'if it was up your
ass you would know where it was'....)

While you are laughing would you tell us why so many experiments show
the failure of Bell type inequalities. If reality were local these
failures should not happen.

Bob Kolker

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:44:48 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:



Mike Dubbeld wrote:

Actually I prefer the phrase Voodoo to Non-locality....... (its shorter


(you know - you stick something here and something acausal happens many
miles away... Is that what then mean when they say 'if it was up your
ass you would know where it was'....)

While you are laughing would you tell us why so many experiments show
the failure of Bell type inequalities. If reality were local these
failures should not happen.

Bob Kolker


Perhaps some of these experiments were carried out under false
pretense? Until recently not many labs had sufficiently accurate
atomic clocks to measure things in other than 4 dimensions. From what
I have read many of the "non local" issues get resolved in models of
reality that involve 11 dimensions. . .

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


Mike Dubbeld wrote:

Actually I prefer the phrase Voodoo to Non-locality....... (its
shorter


(you know - you stick something here and something acausal happens
many
miles away... Is that what then mean when they say 'if it was up
your
ass you would know where it was'....)

While you are laughing would you tell us why so many experiments show
the failure of Bell type inequalities. If reality were local these
failures should not happen.

Thats precisely why I am laughing. Send me your picture I want to try an
experiment with a pin.....


Bob Kolker

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

"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.

"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.

"Terry Wilder" wrote in message
...

"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.

If you want to call non-locality FTL thats what it is. Non-locality is a
fact you must live in la la land if you believe otherwise. I don't have
any good circumvention ideas.

Mike Dubbeld