Recent content by mattt

That's a strange question, isn't it? Those experiments are explained by non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the results of those experiments are predicted by non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The dynamics in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is defined by the Schrodinger equation (plus...

The case where both the absolutely continuous and the singular continuous spectrum are the empty set (and so the spectrum is just the pure-point spectrum), is very similar to the finite dimensional case. The Theorem is a generalization of this result to any (densely defined) Self-Adjoint...

Look at the Spectral Theorem for Unbounded Self-Adjoint Operators on Hilbert Space.

Because there's no way to get from: (Atom decayed)x(cat dead) + (atom not decayed)×(cat alive) to: (Atom decayed)x(cat dead) Or from: (Atom decayed)x(cat dead) + (atom not decayed)×(cat alive) to: (atom not decayed)×(cat alive) by means of Schrodinger Equation.

But DrChinese, your description of the situation in this thread is not accurate. Peter, Arnold and myself are using the proper mathematics of NRQM to support everything we say. You are not doing the same. You only present some fictional mathematical symbols, that supposedly represent a "state"...

Your answer is really strange. NRQM explains all these experiments just fine. It is your wording what is not backed up by NRQM.

Your interpretation of their wording (in the case I refer to) IS incompatible with NRQM. You are NOT using NRQM to explain the results, because your explanation invokes "states" that don't exist in NRQM.

You have an experimental set up, some experimental results and a theoretical explanation of what's going on. In the other cases, the theoretical explanation is OK. In the case we are discussing, the "theoretical explanation" in that paper uses undefined concepts ("state at a fixed time of a...

Yes, sloppy wording again. I interpret it as saying that they obtain the same statistics, and calling it "the same state". (Maybe it is customary to call it that way in some circles). But surely you understand that there isn't a fixed time t_0 where a biphoton1,4 state exist, right?

Not their wording, but your interpretation of their wording. I interpret their wording just like Peter and Arnold, which entails no problem with theory.

Exactly. That's why I said in another threat about the many worlds interpretations, that in many of those worlds, if they have human-like creatures at all, they will develop different scientific theories/models (to account for what they really observe).

Their wording violates theory (QM) depending on how you interpret it (their wording :-) ). If you interprete it as saying: "there exists a fixed time t_0 and a biphoton1,4 entangled state at t_0", then this interpretation of their wording violates the theory (in the specific case I am talking...

I don't dispute any of the results of those experiments. Just the wording. In the case where photon1 is destroyed (for all observers) before photon4 is created, having "entanglement-like statistics" is not the same as having "a biphoton1,4 entangled state at a fixed time t_0" (because the...

What I mean is that in the case where biphoton1,2 is created and photon1 is measured (and destroyed) before (for all possible reference frames) biphoton3,4 is created, there can be no biphoton1,4 Bell State (or any biphoton1,4 state). I must conclude that you (and possibly the authors of that...

This. In a nutshell.