Recent content by Morbert

You are absolutely required to accept that (1) and (2) are unambiguously the same state. Ma says it explicitly and it follows immediately from basic algebra in quantum mechanics. If you don't accept this you will just compound misunderstanding on misunderstanding.

What is unambiguous is (1) and (2) are the same state, just written differently. With this solid base, we are free reproduce the statistics of the experiment however we wish. We can for example have the BSM on 2 and 3 project 1 and 4 onto a Bell state, or we can have the polarization...

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 ##\ket{\psi^+}_{14}\ket{\psi^+}_{23}## or ##\ket{\psi^-}_{14}\ket{\psi^-}_{23}## or ##\ket{\phi^+}_{14}\ket{\phi^+}_{23}## or ##\ket{\phi^-}_{14}\ket{\phi^-}_{23}##...

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 that a future BSM measurement acting on ##\Psi## that collapses 23 to a Bell state will also collapse 14 onto a Bell state. I.e. Ma is not saying is that (2)...

The closest I could find https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510095 [edit] - PS Jurg Froehlich gives a related view of quantum theory through the lens of probability https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1484 PPS This is not to say that ordinary Kolmogorovian probability is incompatible with QM. It just...

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 are jumping ahead and interpreting this as me asking whether you accept Ma is saying photons 1 and 4 were secretly entangled all along. I.e. You're...

I'm not asking you for physical meaning. That comes after. First we need basic linear algebra. Ma says something more specific than "(2) is mathematically derived from (1)". He says (2) is a rewriting of (1). Do you accept this?

Here you also jump away the sticking point, which just results in tripping. Before you can talk about what is entangled with what, you have to first accept simple state expansions. You need to accept that |Ψ〉1234 = |Ψ−〉12⨂|Ψ−〉34 = 1/2(|Ψ+〉14⨂|Ψ+〉23 − |Ψ−〉14⨂|Ψ−〉23 − |Φ+〉14⨂|Φ+〉23 + |Φ−〉14⨂|Φ−〉23)

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" Do you or do you not accept that Ma says that rewriting equation (1) in the bases of Bell states of photons 2 and 3 yields equation (2)?

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 now accept that Ma's (2) is the state of the prepared system, prior to any measurement?

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 BSM. Ma explicitly says i) is the prepared state rewritten in a specific basis.

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 statistics of these experiments without recourse to retrocausal entanglement swapping.

@DrChinese's mistake is more fundamental. He does not believe QM can actually reproduce the experiment without invoking some retrocausality because he does not understand the forward-in-time calculations.