Recent content by dbertels

Thanks for all your help - that was really useful..

Thanks Zonde, sorry to bring this back to basics (as the current discussion is no doubt more meaningful), but can you please explain how you connect my situation (0, 30, -30) to your first entanglement situation?

Please note I started a new post with the correct details and a sketch as this thread is getting too confusing: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bells-inequality-polarisation-for-the-layman.860275/

My previous thread on this topic got a bit messy as the gist of the argument was in the middle of the thread and turned out wrong. Hence this new updated version. One of my favourite articles on Bell's Theorem can be found at...

Oh - of course, the energy is already present because the protons are undergoing the acceleration - that makes perfect sense now (don't know why it didn't before - ideas get stuck sometimes) - I very much appreciate you guys explaining this with such patience.

I'm sorry, there's a mistake in the said reasoning. I don't have to reverse the inequality sign, but I do have to consider mismatches to make the inequality work, i.e, num mismatches of (-30, 0) + number of mismatches (0,30) >= number of mismatches (-30, 30) 0.25 + 0.25 >= 0.5 (2 x 0.25) in...

Ok, so is it right to say that colliding the protons causes those protons to absorb energy, resulting in the energy concentrating in a very small space which allows the formation of particles?

I'm liking that - So the kinetic energy created by the collision allows this to happen..

Yes, it is entirely plausible that adding all RH smokers and LH men is very likely higher than all male smokers. I got that equation from http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html who gives a simple proof as well. The purpose of my question actually...

Still, I'm interested to know what the best way would be to describe what happens in a particle collision, if you had to explain it to non-physicists in the most meaningful way possible. Any takers on this?

Thanks sheaf, looks like a great article which I will read through into more depth. At first glance, even though Bell's Inequality is covered, I can't see (even a remote resemblance) to the version of Bell's Inequality that I derived in the 6th post in this thread. I still would like to know if...

Great, I understand what you're saying here and I think I can see where my confusion is coming from - I was thinking particle collision involved quantum physics because of the scale of the particles involved, hence my 'creation of new particles' analogy (that possibly clears up the fact I'm no...

Very interesting statements - unfortunately, I'm not in a position to comprehend this. Maybe you can point me to material that may throw light on these statements? Thanks for taking the time answering this - it gives me material to research. Interesting how all the 'realities' of the classical...

Is the term 'frame' here used in the sense of 'state'? Can you point me to any articles that can help me understand this?

@BvU Granted I shouldn't have used the 'fountain' image, it just introduced another analogy that can be misconstrued. @Orodruin Does this mean that the energy/mass required to create the Higgs boson was present in the colliding hadrons?