Morbert's latest activity

You are absolutely required to accept that (1) and (2) are unambiguously the same state. Ma says it explicitly and it follows...

What is unambiguous is (1) and (2) are the same state, just written differently. With this solid base, we are free reproduce the...

Post-BSM*, the new state is one of the four terms in (2), but it is not (2), as (2) is a linear combination of them. I.e. It is...

Ma and I are aligned perfectly. Ma is saying that if we rewrite ##\Psi##, (1), in the basis of Bell stats of photons 2 and 3, we can see...

The closest I could find https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510095 [edit] - PS Jurg Froehlich gives a related view of quantum theory...

In Ma's (1), photons 1 and 4 are not entangled. In Ma's (2), photons 1 and 4 are not entangled.

@DrChinese I suspect what is happening is when you see me ask whether you accept Ma's words when he says (2) is a rewriting of (1), you...

I'm not asking you for physical meaning. That comes after. First we need basic linear algebra. Ma says something more specific than...

Here you also jump away the sticking point, which just results in tripping. Before you can talk about what is entangled with what, you...

You keep ducking what Ma explicitly says. Ma: "This can be seen by rewriting Eq. (1) in the basis of Bell states of photons 2 and 3"...

You're jumping around from experiment to experiment. Do you or do you not now accept that Ma's (2) is the same as Ma's (1)? I.e. Do you...

Two steps forward three steps back. None of those three states i) ii) iii) are produced by a BSM. And i) is the prepared state before a...

Yep. If you want to read the calculations in a retrocausal way, you can, but you don't have to.

And you think there are these conflicts because you don't understand basic operational quantum theory, which readily reproduces the...

@DrChinese's mistake is more fundamental. He does not believe QM can actually reproduce the experiment without invoking some...