Recent content by Matterwave

I don't understand this objection. If you plug in ##p=0## into equation 1 you get ##\rho_C=\frac{1}{2}(|o_1\rangle|o_2\rangle\langle o_1|\langle o_2|+|e_1\rangle|e_2\rangle\langle e_1|\langle e_2|)## which looks like a mixture of product states to me.

Well I was responding to your general request, which seemed to me to be how to control for systematic errors and noise. If this single plot is all you're looking for, does figure 2 in this paper work for you: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0511265 It's published in PRA...

Have you already looked through papers and didn't find what you were looking for? It might be helpful to state which papers you already read. It is standard practice that in experimental papers care is taken when it comes to possible systematic errors. Sometimes the detailed analyses get pushed...

Which would be?

This is interesting. Sometimes one hears from the orthodox QM crowd that a lean towards a ##\psi##-epistemic reading avoids paradoxes since the wave function "is just book keeping". For example, probably one of the more hardline orthodox QM papers I've come across (from a different thread here...

Fair enough. Perhaps I was not as charitable with my language in my prior post (#23) as I should have been. Indeed, I quite like the argument from homogeneity and isotropy in general. Landau and Lifshitz also go down a similar path and I quite like their pedagogy. Still, for me, the constancy...

I see some hedging with the (somewhat), but it seems your view is basically that of orthodox QM? It is called "orthodox" because it is the most popular (afaik it still is) view of QM. I'm gonna say it again, slapping a "classical" label on something doesn't make it false or wrong. If your...

Simply slapping a "classical" label on something doesn't make it false. Reichenbach's principle of common causes says that when two events ##A,B## are correlated and not independent, i.e. ##p(A,B) > p(A)p(B)##, then they are explained by common causes ##C## such that once all common causes are...

One thing (not necessarily a bad thing) with physics proofs is they always depend somewhat on some shared concepts and definitions. So, pinpointing the exact "these are the assumptions / postulates" is always a bit tricky. From reading that paper, I see the following 3 postulates (maybe not...

Did you mean to link back to this current thread?

See the second half of my post. I have to be pedantic here... sorry, neutrinos were my area of research all those many years ago. 😂 Neutrino oscillations show (squared) mass splittings. The quantities which show up in flavor oscillations are the squared mass splittings ##\Delta m^2_{21},\Delta...

Is your proposal to follow their lead and drop facorizability? And are you going down the LS route (using conditional quantum states) or dropping factorizability altogether? Note that "no superluminal signaling" is not enough to maintain relativistic causal structure according to Bell and those...

That the speed of light is invariant is a postulate of the theory of special relativity. As such, it needs no deeper explanation beyond "we observed it in the laboratory". If one asks "why does light in particular travel at that invariant speed?" then the answer would be because light is...

The algebra in that paper and the algebra needed in QFT in general is truly quite a lot. I remember my QFT course in grad school was basically my professor grinding through expressions for the whole hour every lecture lol. Unfortunately I got very little out of that course..

Very minor correction, gravity is spin 2 not 1/2. 🤸