Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[DrChinese]

If you reread the post where I introduced this you'll see that I wasn't talking about SPDC photons.

The counter-propagating photons emitted by the same atom in my example are always entangled in polarization due to conservation of angular momentum. This entanglement means that members of an entangled pair are polarized identically. However, the value of L, the polarization angle of any given pair, is varying randomly.

Sorry, you are making an important mistake here. Yes, it is true that the photons you describe from the atom are entangled. However, the model you describe is NOT the same. Instead, it matches the PDC polarization unentangled situation I described above. You cannot say your model works if you apply it to the wrong situation. There is a GIANT different in Entangled State stats and Product State stats. Your example - where there is a definite polarization L - only matches the Product State situation. This is a very important distinction and you need to understand this. It is probably the reason you have had trouble seeing some of the arguments we have provided in the past.

 

[ThomasT]

Why did you apply Malus Law?

Wrt each trial, two identically polarized optical disturbances are being analyzed by crossed linear polarizers.

Why is Malus Law applied in the QM treatment?

 

[DrChinese]

Not by fiat. Malus Law is applied and the angular difference is simply rendered in terms of the hidden variable.

As RUTA is also trying to tell you: Application of Malus as you are trying will NOT yield Entangled State stats. Please note that it is true that Malus is a cos^2 function, and so are the Entangled State statistics. But how you apply these are different for different experimental situations.

a) Application of Malus to (A-L) and (B-L) does NOT lead to Malus for (A-B) as you imagine. It leads to different stats, as I have already told you.

b) The reason you apply Malus to entangled pairs is because of the superposition of states: HH> + VV>. When you then apply rotation to the superposition, rotating by some A or B, you end up with an expression that simplifies to cos^2(A-B).

The Dehlinger reference derives this.

 

[ThomasT]

Suppose you say the photons pass a polarizer (vertically polarized wrt the setting, typically denoted V) if their polarization L is within 45 deg of the setting. Between 45 deg and 90 deg the photons are blocked (horizontally polarized wrt the setting, typically denoted H). This is a reasonable assumption and leads to an overall 50% rate for V at each detector. Now, what is the probability of a VV outcome for settings A and B? The answer is 0.5 - |A - B|/pi, which you can obtain by simply drawing the 45-deg cones about settings A and B and looking at their overlap. For a detailed explanation, see equation 19, p 907, of section VIII. Local Realistic Hidden Variable Theory, in "Entangled photons, nonlocality, and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory," Dietrich Dehlinger and M.W. Mitchell, Am. J. Phys. 70 (9), Sep 2002.

All we have are averages. Photon counts per run are accounted for. There are no probabilities for the results of individual trials.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes and No. YES: there have been models that could explain some situations such as these special cases. But NO: your model is NOT one of those. Those models are different. In effect, they postulate that there are a large (and perhaps infinite) number of hidden variables associated with the range of polarization settings. For simplicity, imagine that there is: HV(1), HV(2),... HV(359, HV(360).

Of course, this model "fixes" the problem with your model. But at a cost. Because now you just fell prey to Bell and the problem of being able to provide a realistic resultset for the 3 angles I specified (0/120/240 a la Mermin). You cannot do it - but please feel free to try!

The perfect correlation/anticorrelation corresponding to angular differences of 0^o and 90^o are accounted for by the identical polarizations of the members of each entangled pair.

 

[DrChinese]

Wrt each trial, two identically polarized optical disturbances are being analyzed by crossed linear polarizers.

Why is Malus Law applied in the QM treatment?

See the Dehlinger paper. Although it really doesn't matter for your particular model, because yours gives completely different results than experiment even for the perfect correlations cases.

On the other hand, Dehlinger describes a DIFFERENT LHV than yours - as an example - and shows how it falls apart. But his works for the perfect correlation cases, which is more or less what EPR envisioned.

 

[DrChinese]

The perfect correlation/anticorrelation corresponding to angular differences of 0^o and 90^o are accounted for by the identical polarizations of the members of each entangled pair.

No, they are not. Try it and you will see.

L=30 degrees
A=0 degrees
B=90 degrees

cos^2(A-L) * cos^2(B-L) = [Not 0 or 1 as QM predicts]

 

[ThomasT]

As RUTA is also trying to tell you: Application of Malus as you are trying will NOT yield Entangled State stats. Please note that it is true that Malus is a cos^2 function, and so are the Entangled State statistics. But how you apply these are different for different experimental situations.

Malus Law applies because of the physical setup.

Application of Malus to (A-L) and (B-L) does NOT lead to Malus for (A-B) as you imagine.

Malus Law applies in the individual trials because we have an optical disturbance with an unknown polarization L being analyzed by a linear polarizer with a certain setting. The interaction of the incident disturbance with the polarizer yields a resultant disturbance with intensity proportional to cos²|a - L|.

I've already explained the physical reasoning behind the application of Malus Law applies in the joint context.

 

[DrChinese]

Malus Law applies because of the physical setup.

Malus Law applies in the individual trials because we have an optical disturbance with an unknown polarization L being analyzed by a linear polarizer with a certain setting. The interaction of the incident disturbance with the polarizer yields a resultant disturbance with intensity proportional to cos²|a - L|.

I've already explained the physical reasoning behind the application of Malus Law applies in the joint context.

You may as well say dogs quack*. Malus does not apply to your setup. Please work through the example I gave above and you will immediately see that the math fails. Sorry, there is nothing gray about your example. If you apply Malus to A-L and to B-L, you don't also get Malus for A-B.

*Although I should add that my dog is so weird, she may as well quack.

 

[RUTA]

All we have are averages. Photon counts per run are accounted for. There are no probabilities for the results of individual trials.

I derived the probability per trial using a particular lhv model. The assumption that such a probability will correspond to the frequencies of outcomes in actual experiments is a particular (and still debated in philosophical circles) interpretation of the meaning of "probability." In physics, we take this for granted and it works, so ... .

DrC has answered your other questions. I suggest you read the AJP paper I referenced. Work through all the calculations to make sure you understand them. If you need help, send me your questions. I have my intro QM students supply all the missing calcs in that paper as an exercise. Caveat: There are some typos in his equations but if you understand what he's doing, you'll catch those easy enough.

 

[Frame Dragger]

ThomasT, what is your fascination with Malus' Law? This is sounding more and more like a pet theory or an article of faith.

 

[DrChinese]

If you need help, send me your questions. I have my intro QM students supply all the missing calcs in that paper as an exercise. Caveat: There are some typos in his equations but if you understand what he's doing, you'll catch those easy enough.

A very kind offer.

I hope I remember this thread the next time ThomasT brings this subject up. Now I understand better where he is coming from.

 

[ThomasT]

No, they are not. Try it and you will see.

L=30 degrees
A=0 degrees
B=90 degrees

cos^2(A-L) * cos^2(B-L) = [Not 0 or 1 as QM predicts]

You're evaluating the expression incorrectly. But, yes, there's still a problem. Maybe |a - b| can't be expressed in terms of the hidden variable or maybe there's some simple fix. In either case, cos²|a - b| does give the correct result for all values of a, b and L.

Since this is an expression of Malus Law, then the question is: does Malus Law actually apply simply because we're analyzing identically polarized optical disturbances with crossed linear polarizers?

 

[DrChinese]

You're evaluating the expression incorrectly.

Ok, say we have:

A=0
B=0
L=45 degrees

p(A, heads) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(B, heads) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(A and B, heads) = .25

p(A, tails) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(B, tails) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(A and B, tails) = .25

Per your model, the matches will be .25 + .25 or 50% of the time.

But entangled A and B give both as matches 100% of the time.

 

[ThomasT]

You may as well say dogs quack*. Malus does not apply to your setup.

Actually, it applies whenever you're analyzing polarization.

If you apply Malus to A-L and to B-L, you don't also get Malus for A-B.

The application of Malus Law gives the correct results in the individual as well as joint contexts. Now, can we express the angular difference in terms of the hidden variable? If we can then we have a local hidden variable account. If not then we just have a local account.

 

[DrChinese]

Actually, it applies whenever you're analyzing polarization.

The application of Malus Law gives the correct results in the individual as well as joint contexts. Now, can we express the angular difference in terms of the hidden variable? If we can then we have a local hidden variable account. If not then we just have a local account.

If you are not going to do any work on this issue yourself, you won't see me continuing to try to assist you. Work the math yourself following my example and read the Dehlinger paper too.

 

[RUTA]

Actually, it applies whenever you're analyzing polarization.
The application of Malus Law gives the correct results in the individual as well as joint contexts.

I still don't understand where you're getting this result because you're not providing a state or a physical mechanism. You're simply claiming that Malus Law applies to the analysis of polarization experiments, but that's not true in general. The correlation outcome is state dependent, so the result you're calling Malus Law (.5cos^2(A - B)) is only true for a specific QM situation. You're claiming to obtain this formula without specifying the context, so there are certainly many experiments that would not agree with your prediction. For example, in Dehlinger and Mitchell's experimental set up they find the probability of a VV outcome for settings A and B is:

sin^2(A)*sin^2(B)*cos^2(theta) + cos^2(A)*cos^2(B)*sin^2(theta) + .25*sin(2A)*sin(2B)*sin(2theta)*cos(phi).

They don't get the simple .5cos^2(A - B) because their equipment doesn't produce the state (|HH> + |VV>)/sqrt(2). Instead, their equipment produces the state

cos(theta)*|HH> + exp[i*phi]*sin(theta)*|VV>.

That's why I explained the lhv equation (section VIII of their paper) in such detail. It's not true that Malus Law applies to all polarization experiments. You have to derive what is true and sometimes it is Malus Law, but you can't simply posit Malus Law as providing the correlation rate in all polarization experiments, b/c it's not true in general.

 

[DrChinese]

That's why I explained the lhv equation (section VIII of their paper) in such detail. It's not true that Malus Law applies to all polarization experiments. You have to derive what is true and sometimes it is Malus Law, but you can't simply posit Malus Law as providing the correlation rate in all polarization experiments, b/c it's not true in general.

Yes, in fact I was tripped up sadly on that once. For example, suppose you have 3 polarization entangled photons. They do not follow the cos^2(theta) rule. Tez had to correct me on that one.

 

[ThomasT]

Ok, say we have:

A=0
B=0
L=45 degrees

p(A, heads) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(B, heads) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(A and B, heads) = .25

p(A, tails) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(B, tails) = cos^2(A-L) = .5
p(A and B, tails) = .25

Per your model, the matches will be .25 + .25 or 50% of the time.

No. Wrt the setup I described there are no tails. Wrt my account (I wouldn't call it a model, per se) P(A,B) = cos²(|a - b|).

The problem is in expressing |a - b| in terms of the hidden variable. It might not be possible. But even if not, it's still a local account due to my Malus Law rationalization.

 

[DrChinese]

No. Wrt the setup I described there are no tails. Wrt my account (I wouldn't call it a model, per se) P(A,B) = cos²(|a - b|).

What do you mean there are no tails? All actual experiments give you a 1/0, Y/N, Heads/tails boolean result.

And if you are not putting forth a model, then what are you arguing? The whole point of this discussion is to convince you that you CANNOT construct such a model.

 

[ThomasT]

What do you mean there are no tails? All actual experiments give you a 1/0, Y/N, Heads/tails boolean result.

We're counting photons, detections. Not nondetections.

And if you are not putting forth a model, then what are you arguing? The whole point of this discussion is to convince you that you CANNOT construct such a model.

It's only a model if |a - b| can be expressed in a way that includes L without contradiction. I think there might be a way to do it.

 

[DrChinese]

We're counting photons, detections. Not nondetections.

Most Bell tests no longer use that technique because it is inferior. By using a polarizing beamsplitter (PBS) with separate detectors for both outputs, you get a more definite statement.

Obviously, there is a way to adjust the counts to match your setup. And you still get the wrong answer.

 

[ThomasT]

I still don't understand where you're getting this result because you're not providing a state or a physical mechanism. You're simply claiming that Malus Law applies to the analysis of polarization experiments, but that's not true in general. The correlation outcome is state dependent, so the result you're calling Malus Law (.5cos^2(A - B)) is only true for a specific QM situation. You're claiming to obtain this formula without specifying the context, so there are certainly many experiments that would not agree with your prediction. For example, in Dehlinger and Mitchell's experimental set up they find the probability of a VV outcome for settings A and B is:

sin^2(A)*sin^2(B)*cos^2(theta) + cos^2(A)*cos^2(B)*sin^2(theta) + .25*sin(2A)*sin(2B)*sin(2theta)*cos(phi).

They don't get the simple .5cos^2(A - B) because their equipment doesn't produce the state (|HH> + |VV>)/sqrt(2). Instead, their equipment produces the state

cos(theta)*|HH> + exp[i*phi]*sin(theta)*|VV>.

That's why I explained the lhv equation (section VIII of their paper) in such detail. It's not true that Malus Law applies to all polarization experiments. You have to derive what is true and sometimes it is Malus Law, but you can't simply posit Malus Law as providing the correlation rate in all polarization experiments, b/c it's not true in general.

That's why I used an experimental setup where Malus Law does clearly apply.

 

[RUTA]

That's why I used an experimental setup where Malus Law does clearly apply.

I haven't seen you derive your coincidence rate. If you've done that, please tell me the post number. If not, please derive it now.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Most Bell tests no longer use that technique because it is inferior. By using a polarizing beamsplitter (PBS) with separate detectors for both outputs, you get a more definite statement.

Obviously, there is a way to adjust the counts to match your setup. And you still get the wrong answer.

When is it alright to accuse someone of not knowing what the hell they're talking about?! I know that this is a civilized forum, but come on...

@ThomasT: Show some work, that WORKS, and until then stop taking the painfully long way around to finding that your assumptions are baseless. PLEASE.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

...didn’t we run this debate previously – about the 'detection' loophole...??

Anyhow for myself and any other layman out there, let’s reconcile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus'_law#Malus.27_law_and_other_properties"
Malus' law, which is named after Etienne-Louis Malus, says that when a perfect polarizer is placed in a polarized beam of light, the intensity, I, of the light that passes through is given by ... (yada, yada, yada) ... In practice, some light is lost in the polarizer and the actual transmission of unpolarized light will be somewhat lower than this, around 38% for Polaroid-type polarizers but considerably higher (>49.9%) for some birefringent prism types.

Who is Etienne-Louis Malus? Well, he’s this guy:

A participant in Napoleon's expedition into Egypt (1798 to 1801)​

Can we start a poll... if this Napoleon-guy is going to win the battle between QM and ... and ... the Waterloophole Theory Fernwirkung (!?WTF!?) ...

 

[Frame Dragger]

...didn’t we run this debate previously – about the 'detection' loophole...??

Anyhow for myself and any other layman out there, let’s reconcile:

Who is Etienne-Louis Malus? Well, he’s this guy:

A participant in Napoleon's expedition into Egypt (1798 to 1801)​

Can we start a poll... if this Napoleon-guy is going to win the battle between QM and ... and ... the Waterloophole Theory Fernwirkung (!?WTF!?) ...

Oooh... for a guy who's said that English is not your first language, you have a keen sense of wielding it for the sake of humour and making a point. I think yours was a fairly... direct way of explaining the "apples and oranges" concept to ThomasT. Malus' Law is certainly useful (sort of)... it just has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Hehe, of course Etienne-Louis Malus is completely innocent – he’s just a victim to his "apples" being used to prove that "oranges" do not exist, by "someone"...

English is not your first language

Correct, but the "Swedish Chef" has taught me almost everything there is to know!

Thanks!

 

[SpectraCat]

..

Correct, but the "Swedish Chef" has taught me almost everything there is to know!

Bork Bork Bork!

At his finest:

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Bork Bork Bork!

Hahaha! "After that – I’m running away!"


(but I’ll be back to reply the rest ASAP)

 

[yoda jedi]

No. The properties, motion(s) of the entangled particles that are being jointly analyzed are either identical or closely related in some way due to past interaction(s), a common source, or they're parts of an encompassing system.

So there really doesn't need to be any communication or causal link of any sort between the separated particles in order to understand why joint detections of them are correlated wrt some global measurement parameter(s).

That's right, but that statement needs some qualification. In the contexts where joint detection attributes are correlated to global measurement parameters the hidden variable that would, if it were known, allow more precise prediction of individual results is simply not relevant.

What's relevant in the joint context is the relationship between the two separated particles.

The oft repeated statement that QM is incompatible with local hidden variables isn't quite true. QM is compatible with lhv formulations of certain setups, such as wrt the individual arms of optical Bell tests. QM is incompatible with lhv formulations of setups where the lhv is irrelevant wrt determining the results, such as wrt the correlations of joint results with some global measurement parameter.

'Way out' of what -- nonlocality? What nonlocality? If you think that it can be inferred via experimental violations of Bell inequalities or via GHZ inconsistencies, then consider that the physical meaning attributed to BIs and GHZ manipulations associated with Bell tests is rather questionable.

You might start a separate thread exploring exactly how BIs are derived and exactly how the limits imposed by them are connected with the reality of the experimental setups -- and also exactly how the detection attributes (+1s and -1s) involved in GHZ manipulations are connected to EPR elements of reality.

It isn't at all a foregone conclusion, nor has it been definitively demonstrated, that experimental violations of BIs or GHZ inconsistencies have the physical meaning that's been attributed to them by some -- that is, quantum entanglement should not be taken as being synonymous with nonlocality or ftl propagations.

and not the only, to rule out locality.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Now, Bob may have tried to place external controls on Alice's environment by trapping her in a box with a death-device, but how did he set up the measurement that was to take place. Whatever arrangements he made, once he goes away to make his measurement (at a suitably large distance to make this test case meaningful and interesting), he can only assume without knowing that his arrangements went off without a hitch. Confirmation must wait for the information to arrive by normal light-speed comms.

Of course you’re right – the "hitch-factor" can never be ruled out.

Doesn’t this also have influence on Schrödinger's cat? Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened (= 50/50), but if we apply the "hitch-factor", we get Alive 33% / Dead 33% / Hitch 33% = Dead 33% and Alive 66% ...?

And the ('new') Copenhagen interpretation would then be – the cat is more alive than dead until the box is opened!

(dead serious discovery! )

Hmmm .. not sure why it should be 'simple and understandable' .. and to whom should it be so? What level of education and familiarity with physics should they have? How many years of schooling?

To everyone! To make a 'slightly' sensational allegory (FTL=false):

A father is standing with his son on the lawn, and the son suddenly squeals. Then father & son observe a wasp flying towards them, landing on the arm of the son and sting him. After the traumatic event, son is asking – What happened!?

In a logical world, the father says – Well son, this is absolutely nothing to worry about. Science can explain these things, and if you do what I tell you and become a physicist, you will understand this 100%.

In an illogical world, the father says – Well son, sh*t happens all the time before you know it! And if I can live with this, so can you! Be quiet and GO TO BED!

Get it?

See .. this is why you should have listened to your mother and not gotten involved with those seedy looking QM interpretations!

All joking aside, I guess I see what you are saying here, and suppose it might be a real issue. I am not sure, because I am not sure what "arriving at the same time" means in this context. I'll think about it some more, but it seems like the only way you might be able to define it absolutely is when both photons were impingent on the same detector. Even in that case I think you get into trouble with the HUP when you try to nail things down precisely for the two measurement events. Like I said .. I need to think about it more ...

On final point is that it seems to me that all of your objections are inherently local in character ... don't they all just go away if you accept that the wavefunction of the entangled pair is inherently non-local?

Well yes, sort of... but it does seem to me we a slight 'problem' on our hands... When A & B are far away from each other, we refer to SR and RoS. When A & B are at the 'same parallel place', separated by an 'insulator', we refer to QM and HUP...? Hmmm...

Anyhow, since the last post I have had some kind of 'revelation'. Last night I watched public television, to get my mind of the EPR stuff, and what do they show?? The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics - The Quantum Tamers, with Stephen Hawking, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Gerard Milburn, Wojciech Zurek, Raymond Laflamme, Peter Shor, Seth Lloyd, Lucien Hardy, Daniel Gottesman, et al! Is this just a COINCIDENCE!?

In the program Anton Zeilinger talks about entanglement, and that Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 (in the course of developing "Schrödinger's cat") coined the term Verschränkung.

Entanglement in English means something like 'spaghetti', but Verschränkung in German means "very strong, very well defined connection", according to Zeilinger.

I looked up http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Verschränkung.html" in a German-English dictionary and got:

interleave
interconnection
folding
crossing
clasping

This is obviously something completely different than 'spaghetti', which is not that well-defined! Zeilinger visualize Verschränkung like this:

In this new light, there is no doubt that the entangled pair is a (combined?) wavefunction, not two separate particles!

Now I have a question: How can we know that the wavefunction has this property of opposite spin? According to QM we can’t apply any property to a wavefunction before measurement?? And some say – the wavefunction doesn’t even 'exist'!?



For those curios about "The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics - The Quantum Tamers", here is a link to the first episode. The part about entanglement and EPR starts at 15:50 and ends at 25:40. Don’t worry about the Swedish speaker, it’s just a few sec, and the important stuff comes from the scientist in English:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ur.se%2Fplay%2F156548&sl=sv&tl=en"
http://www.ur.se/play/156548"

Enjoy! It’s available until 25-oct-2010.


P.S. Check out http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Quantum_Tamers/The_Quantum_Tamers/" .

 

[SpectraCat]

Wait ... what happened to Frame Dragger? Did he get banned?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I dunno... ...really hope not...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Whether the polarizer settings are not varied during a run, or varied nonrandomly, or varied randomly, or varied randomly after emission, the result (the correlation between the angular difference of the polarizers and rate of coincidental detection) doesn't vary.

So, the fact that Bell's lhv ansatz "just doesn't work" is NOT "due to the fact that the receiving polarizers are randomly rotated 'AFTER' the photons left the source".

'AFTER' was the last nail in the coffin for LHV. There was a theoretical possibility that the entangled photons had 'spooky tentacles' that could 'sense' the settings of the polarizer, to pre-agree on LHV, and then run to 'mimic' the QM predictions. Why else all this work on randomizing the polarizers??

(I googled "Bell's lhv ansatz" and got 2 hits, both pointing at you at PF... is this your own 'invention'?)

The problem with getting an lhv formulation that fits the experimental results has nothing to do with loopholes.

Correct, it has to do with Bell's theorem – "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". Here’s one of Alain Aspect’s own slides:

It’s hard to understand what your 'solution' actually is. As I understand you dismiss LHV and "spooky action at a distance" and loopholes. What’s left? Etienne-Louis Malus Law from the 18th century? You mentioned Local Hidden Constants in an earlier post, but that doesn’t work either...

It’s quite strange to see the strong argumentation against Alain Aspect et al. We all seem to agree on the theory. When Alain Aspect performed his very first experiment with 2-channel polarizers, the result matched exactly the QM predictions, as Alain Aspect’s own slide shows:

Don’t you think it’s quite farfetched to dismiss the official conclusion, and replace it with your 'personal speculations', based on an optical law from 18th century – basically saying "some light is lost in the polarizer"...?

I can’t do the calculations, but I suspect that the probabilities for the 18th century Malus Law too by chance reproduce exactly the expected results predicted by QM, is even more 'miraculous' than "Spukhafte Fernwirkung"...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I do not see connection with your post #108 but yes this is my personal speculation that illustrates problems with your personal speculation about this overlapping effect.

Hehe, we’re all a bunch of 'grumpy laymen' here, aren’t we?

About your statement in post #108

From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle" states that, for all linear systems,
The net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually.

So I would restate what you said this way: The condition for superposition of the particle (photon) is that it should pass both slits concurrently.

Okay, but to be fair we should maybe refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition" : "Quantum superposition is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have."

Niels Bohr would turn in his grave if someone tried to stipulate a wavefunction as an object...

But as I said, this is maybe not important. What is important is if the wavefunction of the entangled pair is considered one wavefunction, or two. I don’t think two wavefunctions creates one interference pattern... maybe some of the pros can inform us?

First, scientist do not to say things like "Hey! I can prove some weird stuff!" because they relay on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" . They say things like "Results of experiment is in agreement with some weird hypothesis."

Okay, I will put smileys after all 'bad jokes' from now on...

This is because you can not prove theory with experiment but only disprove competing theories.

Okay, so Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse experiment were actually disproving Newton, not confirming Einstein??

Second, you don't have to be considered swindler if you make some error. Everybody makes errors but not everybody is swindler.

Sounds logical. What don’t sound logical is that every scientist in the 'EPR business' is making the same 'correlated' mistake...??

There is nice picture that I spied in another thread:

Yeah, that is funny! The question is – Is it Einstein, Aspect & Bell wearing the tin foil hat, or is it "someone" else??

You are not very careful with your statement.
The theory states that if X, Y, Z and determinism then certain inequalities hold.
Besides Counterfactual Definiteness is in conflict with Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle contrary to what you are implying.

You’re right. Sorry, layman error...

This is quite loose statement. There are things in QM that are not very strictly established like correspondence between certain things in mathematical formalism and physical reality. Because of that QM still can accommodate quite different interpretations.
So I would say that with some minor changes in interpretation it can still be compatible with (contextual) LHV.

Humm... "things" ... "certain things" ... "physical reality" ... "quite" ... "minor changes" ... "contextual" ...

To me, 'tin foil warning' is now flashing all red.

Could you please explain how you fit in contextual LHV with this slide from Alain Aspect:

 

[inflector]

Wait ... what happened to Frame Dragger? Did he get banned?

I sure hope not. I think I may have jinxed him accidentally:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=397935

Fortunately, there is hope for Frame Dragger. It seems there is some sort of temporary banning and demerit system whereby you can be warned or penalized for infractions against the rules.

My guess is that Frame Dragger is under a temporary ban. Perhaps not though, he may have reached the 10 point automatic permanent ban threshold.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Perhaps not though, he may have reached the 10 point automatic permanent ban threshold.

? ?

I’m totally confused... is it the "h-word" in post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2690682&postcount=175" ??

... a sad mad bad day ...

 

[DrChinese]

Wait ... what happened to Frame Dragger? Did he get banned?

I hope not as well! I didn't see anything that was weird posted, maybe it's the post Devil indicated. But that would surprise me.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

maybe it's the post Devil indicated

DrC, if that’s the case – it must be a complete misunderstanding! You and FD are friends, right? And this was kind of an "insider joke", right? Then it must be corrected.

 

[DrChinese]

DrC, if that’s the case – it must be a complete misunderstanding! You and FD are friends, right? And this was kind of an "insider joke", right? Then it must be corrected.

Hey, I would never take that as anything other than light-hearted. I hope FD returns asap. I miss him already [sniff].

Besides, I am friends with everyone.

I will say this: as far as I know, the moderators never comment on suspensions. I actually think that is the best policy all the way around. The intent is to keep the focus on the subject matter.

So with that in mind, I say that EPR-like spooky action at a distance is possible. Did I mention that yet?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Right on DrC! We, all friends on PF, want him back NOW!

Okay, got ya! Let’s hope for the best!

EPR = spooky action = TRUE ;)

 

[glengarry]

I think FD got pretty fed up with me to the point of following me to an old topic on the Number Theory forum and saying that my ideas should be taken as "Independent Research." I take it that "Independent Research" is a euphemism for "Not now relevant and never will be relevant"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=393577

... I want to be sure here... are you saying that you think the code you've written is novel, and somehow more elucidating and efficient than existing methods? You mention "1mil"... so I assume you are referring to a Nobel? Other than appreciating patterns which have been studied for a VERY long time, and taking a (new to you) approach, why do you think this is in any way... new to anyone else? This also seems like something for "Indipendant Research", not Number Theory.

But anyways... EPR, spookiness, good stuff...

 

[jtbell]

I take it that "Independent Research" is a euphemism for "Not now relevant and never will be relevant"

No, he's referring to our Independent Research forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146

which is the only forum where we permit discussion of "new theories" that have not already been published in one of the professional physics venues. See the PF Guidelines (click on the "Rules" link at the top of any page) and note the section Overly Speculative Posts.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I take it that "Independent Research" is a euphemism for "Not now relevant and never will be relevant"

Thanks for sharing glengarry, but if the phrase "Indipendant Research" is enough to be banned, my confusion is now googolplex¹⁰⁰⁰ ...

? ? ?​

Edit: Okay, jtbell explains it, still a mystery...

 

[glengarry]

No, he's referring to our Independent Research forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146

which is the only forum where we permit discussion of "new theories" that have not already been published in one of the professional physics venues. See the PF Guidelines (click on the "Rules" link at the top of any page) and note the section Overly Speculative Posts.

Yes, I understand that "Independent Research" is a subforum here at PF, and I understand that "speculation" is generally not tolerated here at PF, for very obvious reasons. However, I tried to state an https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2691133&postcount=36" in another thread so that people would ask me to show them, by way of mathematics, to prove to them what I was talking about. And I complied with the request immediately. If you are now saying that mathematical proof is itself "speculative," then I would be very much inclined to disagree. I would simply consider myself to be a thoroughly mathematically minded person who is also interested in questions of how constructive mathematical systems can, qua themselves, provide a believable account for the way that a universe such as ours is indeed possible.

My only "agenda" around here is to try to talk all of the "empiricists" out there into becoming more "idealistic" like us mathematicians. I truly mean no harm, and I just hope that we can all get along :)

 

[DrChinese]

Yes, I understand that "Independent Research" is a subforum here at PF, and I understand that "speculation" is generally not tolerated here at PF, for very obvious reasons. However, I tried to state an https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2691133&postcount=36" in another thread so that people would ask me to show them, by way of mathematics, to prove to them what I was talking about. And I complied with the request immediately...

I never saw any math at all. Nor anything more than a sly reference implying you know something worthwhile but are witholding it. I invited you to share. Of course, it should follow guidelines if you decide to post it.

And just because you think your math seems good to you, if it leads to a speculative conclusion, it still belongs in IR.

IR can be junk, or it can be good. Depends I would say.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... My only "agenda" around here is to try to talk all of the "empiricists" out there into becoming more "idealistic" like us mathematicians. I truly mean no harm, and I just hope that we can all get along :)

Well, now we are in the QM forum and as far as I know the mathematics works perfectly fine. The only 'trouble' is that it doesn’t make any 'empirical' sense; (to many of us) it’s completely nuts! One particle here and there, and at two places simultaneously, and it knows if we are looking at it, and if not, it interfere with itself = pure schizo! As if this isn’t enough, the latest discoveries by Bell & Aspect prove that if we look at one particle here – it immediately settles the properties of a twin particle, on the other side of the universe!

IMO, now it’s time to: "Shut up and talk!"

... about this strange world ...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... As to the Relativity of Simultaneity: If you accept an acausal interpretation such as RBW, that goes away as an issue.

I read the paper http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003247/" , and I got the creepy 'MWI feeling'. (Is RUTA the author? If that’s the case – no offence.)


Feels like we get rid of one strange phenomenon, by the cost of an almost stranger 'beast':

The ontology of this interpretation is one in which constructive objects (entities such as particles or waves with worldlines in spacetime) are not fundamental constituents of reality.

Not only reality gets a blow, the arrow of time is a non-question.

Keep in mind that in our blockworld setting, talk of “actions performed” gets only a purely logicalcounterfactual meaning—the entire experimental EPR set-up, its past, present and future, and the spacetime symmetries of that set-up are all just ‘there’—no one could really perform some alternative measurement on the other wing of the experiment without changing the entire spatiotemporal description of the experiment.

(RUTA, are you there?) What happens if want to set up my personal "Omelet Experiment"?

The Omelet Experiment
Four eggs are place in a pipeline that is 1 ly long. When the eggs have traveled to 'detector', they are crushed, whipped and fried in a pan.

Are the past, present and future just 'there' in the "Omelet Experiment"? How do we turn the omelet into eggs?

 

[yoda jedi]

I think FD got pretty fed up with me to the point of following me to an old topic on the Number Theory forum and saying that my ideas should be taken as "Independent Research." I take it that "Independent Research" is a euphemism for "Not now relevant and never will be relevant"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=393577

are you kidding ? .....laughs...

My only "agenda" around here is to try to talk all of the "empiricists" out there into becoming more "idealistic" like us mathematicians.

oh ! you have agenda...
oh so romantic ideas...