- Edited
Robert McEachern
Sorry for asking. i did not know you would think that relevant to the discussion You present A Classical System for Producing“ Quantum Correlations” Robert H. McEachern, yet I am taking about the problem of proposing that entanglement happens as an explanation for correlation of 'seen this way' relative, detection matches., When using the quantum physics idea that the correlations found need explaining, as they do not show each individual outcome as random. > Robert McEachern The supposedly impossible results, were independently verified within just a few weeks of my original fqxi post regarding this, back in August, 2016."
OK, those results are found. I don't disagree that the results were as described. They are as they are but don't explain for themselves why.
Already i have talked about the numbers of matches found referring to a simple Bell's test. Different angle outcomes that happen by chance to correspond can not be counted as being the same as matches at the same orientation even though they have the same 'value'. Therefore we have two categories treated as one. We have correlations due to absolute orientations and correlations due to chance. Hats and scarves. The existing particles and existing experimenter and apparatus within independent of measurement absolute space. Why is the fraternal twin particle explanation needed in addition?
Robert McEachern Reality does not work the way you think it works.
Reality does not work the way any physicists think it works.
Reality (deterministic behaviors) works the way Shannon proved that it must work, 75 years ago.
Firstly maybe. Secondly I think that is true for the majority of mainstream physicists, working with Einstein's relativity and those working with quantum physics.
Thirdly I'm just not sure of that.