Recent content by Tolga T

Very enlightening indeed! "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic...

This experiment is amazing. I was just thinking of an experiment on a circle with points A, S, and B equidistant (and the distance between A and B is less than half the circumference) in the order given. S is the source of preparation for the entangled particles, one of which is sent to A and...

I am not sure everyone is 100% convinced that locality has gone. QM works perfectly experimentally; Bell's inequalities are violated, so at least one of Bell's assumptions must be dropped, and those are just facts. But I think we have every right and reason to suspect that QM is most likely not...

Of course, the experiments are performed with the two measurements spacelike separated, so one cannot speak of the temporal order of the measurements. However, my hypothetical experiment requires a different setting: perform the measurement events timelike separated (while keeping the particles...

What happens if the experimenters at sites A and B do not perform the measurements almost simultaneously, but with a time delay, e.g. 5 minutes or 1 day later at site B than at site A? Do such experiments also lead to results that violate Bell's inequalities?

Thank you for your detailed and crystal-clear explanation. I cannot help but raise the following: - Measurements at the same angle cannot be part of a random process. It is not a stochastic process because the outcome is known with certainty. Therefore, no stochastic process can fit all the...

This is exactly my point. Such a theory would save locality, i.e., one need not worry about universal wave functions or instantaneous correlations at a distance. On the other hand, I also doubt why and how such a theory would make different (or better) predictions than QM.

Thank you for your reply and the links. Sorry for my language, I did not reference the Bell inequalities correctly. Let me try to rephrase it: - That Bell's inequalities are (sometimes) violated is a fact of nature. - If I get it right, hidden variables (Bell's reality) are...

QM is compatible with Bell's inequalities clearly shows that no deterministic program can give similar results for entangled particles. In other words, there is no deterministic algorithm that mimics QM that the particles already follow before the measurement. So far, so good. But of course...

I am just here to follow discussions, explore interesting problems, pose questions and learn more as it pleases me.