Recent content by DrChinese

Sorry it's taking a few days to properly respond to your comprehensive post. Will be back soon, I have tax return deadline I'm facing LOL.

And yet: Not one of the things you mentioned require me to accept your viewpoint. Which hopefully doesn't hold us back. We agree (I believe): Starting with (1), a physical overlap during a BSM is required to remotely produce one of the 4 Bell States listed in (2) for photons 1 and 4.

1. Agreed. 2. Also agreed. 3. Also agreed. My viewpoint is that there "might" be a hidden testable assumption built into an Interpretation that is susceptible to being teased out. Not sure what that might be, but these newer experiments - DCES being my target - might be a fertile area. BM...

That's a big statement, you know! :eek: 1. Is Norsen's (3) - QEH - important too? Just kidding... I had to say that since you mentioned (2)... :smile: 2. So you have repeatedly made comments around the determinism of BM. So I'd like to get more clarity around that. a. Norsen...

1. Agreed. I'm not trying to distinguish the order as we discuss this point. That is a different point. 2. I might call (2) a superposition. Again, the authors' usage of language does not really specify your point of view - or mine exactly. However, at this point it's clearly semantics and...

Perfect. Yes, that is exactly what I am asking for. Thanks. And your reference exactly highlights why I was asking in the first place. Please note that I am NOT arguing or disagreeing with you with the below. As I have said many times, I will accept any statement you make as representing...

No, I don't believe there are any physicists calling streams of state A and state B "the same state" when they can be distinguished experimentally. Ma is able to distinguish BSM - using (2) - from SSM which is based on (1). Not in an individual case (as that is varied randomly in Ma), but...

"We can see that a future BSM measurement acting on ##\Psi## that collapses 23 to a Bell state will also collapse 14 onto a Bell state." Agreed. "He is saying (2) reveals what the state can be post-BSM." Agreed. "I.e. Ma is not saying is that (2) is post BSM." If this is your point, fine...

I really enjoy your comments about my understanding level. Really, I do, they don't bother me. Some of what you say is accurate, some is not. :smile: So I come here asking questions to boost that understanding level. You say "textual" things I've never read anywhere else that I don't...

Welcome to the discussion! You may not be aware of a technical point here. The (2,3) pair polarization is measured (via the BSM, Bell State Measurement) on a mutually unbiased basis relative to the (1,4) pair. This means there is no polarization information at all gained from one pair that...

Having nothing whatsoever to do directly with Physics: The authors, in 2006, said: "At a time when the forces of obfuscation in America are engaged in a campaign against the theory of evolution..." It is 20 years later, and the anti-science parade in the US has advanced further than anyone...

You must already know that I assign no physical meaning to this.

Great analogy! :smile: $100 -> Friend dies -> $1100 (1) -> BSM -> (2)

I just don't get it, of course 1 and 4 are entangled in (2). The authors say exactly the opposite of you, not sure what is ambiguous here: "...if Victor subjects his photons 2 and 3 to a Bell-state measurement [BSM], they become entangled. Consequently photons 1 (Alice) and 4(Bob) also become...

Great reference. Free version: HERE