Recent content by Pat71

If you can't, Derek, I don't think there's much chance I can! It does say: "The randomly paired photons do not have any pre-prepared entanglement, which means they are considered to be a classical system. This raises the question, how could a classical system produce the same result as a...

Interesting...observations suggesting nonlocal interference between randomly paired - i.e. not pre-entangled - photons??

Doesn't Strekalov's "Ghost Interference" experiment of 1995 counter this claim? PRL74p3600.pdf "...Another experiment which (unknowingly) implements Popper's test in a conclusive way, has actually been carried out. Its results are in contradiction with Popper's prediction..." (Tabish Qureshi...

I wasn't suggesting it did. I was thinking about Binney's claim that " 'entangled' is just quantum jargon for 'correlated.'"

Yes, that's a nice experiment. However, I don't think Binney would have the slightest difficulty with it. In Binney's world, a cos^2 rule can be derived from the overlap of two hemispheres. So presumably Binney would consider the Bell states to be like red/green and yellow/blue pairs, perfectly...

Here's another paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6958v1

Alice chooses a and makes a measurement, z is Binney's mistake.

Ok, I see what you mean- z is pre-existing but a isn't there until measurement, at which point we can define what its hemisphere is.

If you've gone wrong anywhere I can't see it. I take it that you mean that, unlike A affecting B, "definition" is something that happens instantaneously at both ends.

Thanks again for this powerful argument Dr Chinese.

I was wondering how Binney would account for Gisin et al's recent quantum teleportation results, in which the teleportation between two photons that had never been in contact outperformed the classical benchmark over 25km.

I think it's one thing to disagree but see the logic of your opponent's position, and another to be unable to see how their argument holds together. Binney seems to want to have his common-sense reality cake and eat it. I think maybe he pines for the Newtonian era. Here's a quote: "The idea...

The thing is, Binney doesn't accommodate locality by loosening his adherence to objective reality. Yes, he emphasizes that the spin vector does not have a definite direction, but this is seen as a particular feature of spin, which he still views as having a definite hemisphere once the...

What's confusing is that he's an eminent figure who has taught quantum mechanics to Oxford University undergraduates for years. Can he be making an error this crass? I know that his true field of expertise is astrophysics but still...Then again, I suppose the last 100 years is littered with...

Thanks Derek. I suppose it's a question of whether I'm reporting him correctly then! I think I am. The quotes I used are verbatim. If you or anyone else wants to check the video clips I linked to earlier in the thread, maybe we can achieve further clarity.