Recent content by Alien8

I see some faint allusion to it, more like an afterthought than a serious consideration. They seem to be saying they have a straight forward local explanation (1), and explanation (2) is just "far out" to even bother saying anything about it, I guess. They speak of some "condition of...

Ok, let's try to boil down the whole EPR paper to a simple two points argument, premise & conclusion, in the most simple and practical terms possible. I'll try to pick out the key points and try to rephrase them as plainly and as directly as I can... By example: - acceleration due to gravity...

I see they are saying the two properties somehow must exist simultaneously, and since their wave function says they don't, EPR conclude the wave function is not their complete description. Admittedly I don't quite get how they arrive to their premise or what are they trying to say with their...

EPR paper is talking about direct, close proximity interaction, like collision between photon and polarizer or electron-proton interaction in hydrogen atom. The distances between entities in these "collision" sort of like direct interactions are within reach and power of electric and magnetic...

There was no any non-locality experiments or Bell inequalities known at that point in time, and the term "entanglement" had not even been invented yet. What could Einstein possibly be referring to? I'm looking at EPR paper itself: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 I...

As far I know wave function is shared only between two interacting entities, like electron - proton interaction, it doesn't say what other electrons might be doing with some other protons. Wave function can be collective as an average, say a light beam interacting with a polarizer, but that...

But where does it say a single wave function can be applied to two separate photons interacting with two separate polarizers?

Yeah, it all started with uncertainty and non-reality, but somehow ended up with non-locality. What's the connection?

That's what I'm talking about. It says a lot about how locality is supposed to fail, but little about how non-locality is supposed to work. I've learned in the other thread how to derive CHSH local prediction: ##1/2 * cos^2(a-b)## from Malus' law, but I am yet to hear what law is QM prediction...

Can you name an example of non-locality before or other than Bell's inequalities? Based on what equation QM predicts ##2 \sqrt{2}## bound on the CHSH correlator?

So after all, what does factorization have to do with locality?I don't see where all these complications and undefined terms come from, I see it really simple: - "In the vernacular of Einstein: locality meant no instantaneous ("spooky") action at a distance; realism meant the moon is there even...

I understand that position of quantum particles is given as probability function or average in QM equations, but what does that have to do with interaction or connection between two particles over distance? I see that entangled pairs are example of non-locality, but can you name any other...

Yes, plain old unpolarized and nonentangled photons, just every two in each pair having the same polarization. Not sure why you call it QM prediction when it's standard Malus' law integration for unpolarized light vs one polarizer...

What exactly makes QM compatible with non-locality or non-realism? Is there an example of QM non-locality or non-realism before or other than Bell test experiments and inequalities?

I'm not ready for all that, too many unknowns. Let's get back to the integral for the classical prediction: Shouldn't we be puzzled by this similarity between 1/2 cos2(a-b) and cos2(a-b)? Local theory ended up with (a-b) term even though a and b should be oblivious to one another. It's...