First to quote you:

"The difference between my attack and the conventional attack is that whereas my attack requires the symmetries, the conventional case assumes the symmetries are a valid property of reality. "

I am unable to recognize the mathematical difference between a requirement and an assumption. So I take this statement that mathematically you are doing the same as the conventional case. Hence, you get the same results.

The difference is in the matter of interpretation. Conventionally, the interpretation is reality is symmetric in this way. I am not sure what your interpretation is.

So we have made some progress in resolving our differences. But there is one last issue. This symmetry leads to general relativity. Yet in the aspect experiments and those that follow, it (presumably, as I cannot claim to be expert, except maybe in reading english) suggests that entangled particles possess action at a distance. If so then then shift symmetry is broken by entangled particles and your model misses the physics associated with that phenomena.

Of course, in my opinion, nobody has yet found the physics of entanglement. But this is a case where an angel has coded so as to break decoding using your model

Who knows, maybe that is how it actually happens. As soon as we think we know almost everything important, an angel modifies the coding just a little- not enough to change the world noticeably- and then inspires some genius scientist to investigate it experimentally. And the scientist gets all the credit.

• Entanglement - aurino - May 8, 2001 - 13:22 UTC
  • Please explain - yanniru - May 9, 2001 - 11:41 UTC
    • Sorry, can't explain - aurino - May 9, 2001 - 12:56 UTC
      • Wouldn't you have a luminal boom - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 17:29 UTC