I A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[PAllen]

As far as I can tell, it's mathematically equivalent to standard QM. I might describe it as a sort of weird variant of the Bohmian interpretation, where there are unobservable particle positions as underlying hidden variables, but stochastic dynamics for these particles, set up in just the right way to match the predictions of standard QM, takes the place of the initial distribution of particle positions in the Bohmian interpretation, which is likewise set up in just the right way to match the predictions of standard QM.

The comparison with Bohmian interpretation is, in fact, discussed in the first of the papers:

"Because this paper’s approach invokes hidden variables
in the form of underlying physical configurations, this
framework for quantum theory shares some aspects with
the de Broglie-Bohm formulation, or Bohmian mechan-
ics [84–86]. However, in contrast to this paper’s ap-
proach, Bohmian mechanics employs deterministic dy-
namics, and features a fundamental guiding equation
that explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance by singling out
a preferred foliation of spacetime into spacelike hyper-
surfaces. This paper instead takes seriously what exper-
iments strongly suggest—that the dynamics of quantum
theory is indeterministic, and that there is no fundamen-
tally preferred foliation of spacetime. The formulation of
quantum theory in this paper is also more flexible and
model-independent than Bohmian mechanics, and works
for all kinds of quantum systems, from particles to fields
and beyond."

Barandes also claim, in the final paper:

"Remarkably, one therefore arrives at what appears to be a
causally local hidden-variables formulation of quantum
theory, despite many decades of skepticism that such a
theory could exist"

It is here that @DrChinese comments are most relevant, because only the simplest EPR set up is actually analyzed in any of the papers.

 

[PeroK]

Barandes also claim, in the final paper:

"Remarkably, one therefore arrives at what appears to be a
causally local hidden-variables formulation of quantum
theory, despite many decades of skepticism that such a
theory could exist"

The thing that niggles me is that it the Aspect experiment testing Bell's Theorem ruled out hidden variables - or so it was assumed. It was not just "skepticism" about hidden variables. Okay, unlike pure mathematics, there is always room for manoeuvre in physics/philosophy and nothing is ever quite proven. Nevertheless, Bell's Theorem is not something to be sneezed at! And it's certaintly not just an expression of skepticism.

 

[PAllen]

The thing that niggles me is that it the Aspect experiment testing Bell's Theorem ruled out hidden variables - or so it was assumed. It was not just "skepticism" about hidden varaibles. Okay, unlike pure mathematics, there is always room for manoeuvre in physics/philosophy and nothing is ever quite proven. Nevertheless, Bell's Theorem is not something to be sneezed at! And it's certaintly not just an expression of skepticism.

According to the papers, all the hidden variable no go theorems implicitly or explicitly assume the hidden variable theories are subject to Riechenbach common cause. The third paper explains how this interpretation escapes Riechenbach. Note, Bohmian theories escape in a different way.

 

[gentzen]

The thing that niggles me is that it the Aspect experiment testing Bell's Theorem ruled out hidden variables - or so it was assumed. It was not just "skepticism" about hidden variables. Okay, unlike pure mathematics, there is always room for manoeuvre in physics/philosophy and nothing is ever quite proven. Nevertheless, Bell's Theorem is not something to be sneezed at! And it's certaintly not just an expression of skepticism.

Just like Bohmian mechanics, this new formulation initially looks extremely nonlocal. So the problem seems to be less how to overcome Bell's theorem (or DrChinese's objections), but how to get back some sort of locality into that formulation. (As I said before, I cannot yet judge how successful Barandes has been in this respect.)

 

[martinbn]

Don't we have enough interpretations already?

At what point weren't there enough interpretations? There were always too many.

 

[PeterDonis]

what appears to be a
causally local hidden-variables formulation of quantum
theory

This claim, of course, depends on using a different definition of "locality" from the one Bell, GHZ, etc. used to prove their theorems. Basically, it means something like "Alice's and Bob's measurement actions are local--they only act on the particle they are measuring". But again, we already knew this: the standard QM math tells us that the operator that describes Alice's measurement only acts on Alice's qubit, and the operator that describes Bob's measurement only acts on Bob's qubit. The nonlocality is in the wave function: acting on either qubit changes the entire entangled wave function, which includes the other qubit. In other words, there is nothing new here, just a choice of terminology that makes it seem like there's something new when there actually isn't.

 

[DrChinese]

This makes them your claims, too.

Note that by making a very selective choice, you heavily bias the quite controversial collection of claims in the literature towards your own preference. That's why I refer to your claims.

I notice that you manage to pick apart the specific words I use, without making any comments of substance about the physics. So let's see:

a. "you heavily bias the quite controversial collection of claims in the literature" Controversial? Really? You think GHZ is controversial (that was one of 2 experiments I mentioned)? GHZ says that in tests of 3 photons entanglement of GHZ states, local realism predicts 4 of 8 possible outcomes while QM predicts the other 4 outcomes - without the need for a statistical correlations. Experiments have confirmed the predictions of QM. I would say that this disproves local realism without leaving the wiggle room sometimes associated with Bell tests. But it could also be considered as disproving realism, unless you are into strange hypothetical FTL signaling mechanisms between 3 (or more) remote particles. What would you call biased or controversial?

On the other hand, your response to my reference on GHZ was to provide a reference with no mention of GHZ? Perhaps you would care to address (counter) GHZ with a relevant citation of what you consider a good experimental team/paper?

b. I also mentioned Remote Entanglement Swapping (where the final entangled pair has never existed in a common backward light cone). Is that a "biased" or "controversial" finding?

---

Yes, my references are quite selective. That's because they leave little room for doubt as to the results or related theory. In that sense, you are correct: they are "biased". And the references are selected to highlight the state of the art in entanglement as it related to the thread. In that sense, you are correct again: they are "controversial", simply because they are not known to many readers.

Something new is often considered "controversial". Hey, the Beatles were controversial when they came out too... and now they are old hat.

 

[PeroK]

Hey, the Beatles were controversial when they came out too... and now they are old hat.

Perhaps the Rolling Stones would be a better example. They were the British bad boys of the 1960's and now it's Sir Mick Jagger!

 

[PAllen]

This claim, of course, depends on using a different definition of "locality" from the one Bell, GHZ, etc. used to prove their theorems. Basically, it means something like "Alice's and Bob's measurement actions are local--they only act on the particle they are measuring". But again, we already knew this: the standard QM math tells us that the operator that describes Alice's measurement only acts on Alice's qubit, and the operator that describes Bob's measurement only acts on Bob's qubit. The nonlocality is in the wave function: acting on either qubit changes the entire entangled wave function, which includes the other qubit. In other words, there is nothing new here, just a choice of terminology that makes it seem like there's something new when there actually isn't.

Except that this formulation doesn't use wave functions at all, except as derived convenience. As I understand it so far, the correlations in measures at A and B are due to the non-factorizability of the hidden (uni-stochastic) configuration underlying Q and R, and this latter is the result of their interaction in their past. However, the part that I agree seems just playing with definitions is that the (Q,R) configuration encompasses continued influences between Q and R following the interaction. That is, while actions of A or B (Alice and Bob) are 'factored out', Q and R still seem non-locally coupled in any every-day sense of the term: the probability of a configuration change at Q remains coupled to the configuration at R, and vice versa. At least, that is my understanding based on pp. 12-13 of the third paper.

 

[PeterDonis]

this formulation doesn't use wave functions at all, except as derived convenience

But that just means the nonlocality--the whatever-you-want-to-call-it that actually enables the Bell inequality violations--is shoved somewhere else in the model. It can't be made to go away. The somewhere else might not be called a wave function in this formulation, but it has the same effect. As you note, it's just "playing with definitions".

 

[Morbert]

I saw the last of these papers when it was dropped into Arxiv a few days ago. The first thing I look for is their treatment of remote Entanglement Swapping* and GHZ**. These are some of the strongest experiments against all forms of local realism. If you aren't addressing these, then you really can't make any useful/serious claims in today's environment.

Of course, those seminal works aren't mentioned at all. (There is a passing GHZ reference, but it is not discussed at all.) The main idea of the paper seems to be to define local causality in a very specific manner, then deny that. Well, experiment reigns supreme. I will give this a better look once modern (last 30 years) experiments are explained in terms of the new interpretation. This paper is closer to 1980's era ideas. ***

The papers submit a new definition of causal locality and argue it is superior when quantum theory is understood as a theory of stochastic processes characterized by an indivisible transition matrix. GHZ etc might be an interesting homework exercise for this interpretation, but it's not clear that it poses any substantive challenge above and beyond simpler, ordinary EPRB-like experiments.

The interpretation itself might be interesting if it ends up saying something re/ intuitions about stochastic processes and the Markov property.

*In these experiments, distant photons are entangled (and violate a Bell inequality) that have never existed in a common backward light cone. Pretty hard to get locality with that.

As i have shown in this thread (you will have to ask the mods for the deleted post). That the photons have never existed in a common backward light cone does not pose any additional challenge to the question of locality beyond standard EPRB because, in the same way the EPRB system is a noncommutative generalization of a classical system, entanglement swapping experiments are are nocommutative generalization of a "correlation swapping" classical experiments where two classical systems that have never existed in a common backward light cone become correlated.

 

[WernerQH]

The interpretation itself might be interesting if it ends up saying something re/ intuitions about stochastic processes and the Markov property.

At first sight it looks more like a refurbished presentation of quantum theory's mathematical apparatus than an interpretation. The transition matrix in the form $\Gamma_{ij}(t) = \rm{tr}(\Theta^\dagger(t) P_i \Theta(t) P_j)$ (eq.26 in the first paper) reminds me of the well-known Schwinger-Keldysh formalism. Unfortunately the configuration space of the "system" is completely abstract, and it's unclear how it relates to the objects that we experience in the real world. One would also desire a clearer picture of those "division events" which permit approximating a non-Markovian process by a Markov process. In some cases the emission of a photon can be thought of as such an event, but in others the emission process cannot be considered as instantaneous and must be treated as a pair of two correlated events (two short-lived, strongly localized currents). My hunch is based on Kubo formulas, and I commented on it in an earlier post.

Yes, I do think that stochastic elements are essential for quantum theory. How could continuous and deterministic evolution according to Schrödinger's equation provide a faithful description of what happens in the real world, for example, the sudden decay of an atomic nucleus?

 

[DrChinese]

1. GHZ etc might be an interesting homework exercize for this interpretation, but it's not clear that it poses any substantive challenge above and beyond simpler, ordinary EPRB-like experiments.

2. That the photons have never existed in a common backward light cone does not pose any additional challenge to the question of locality beyond standard EPRB because, in the same way the EPRB system is a noncommutative generalization of a classical system, entanglement swapping experiments are are noncommutative generalization of a "correlation swapping" classical experiments where two classical systems that have never existed in a common backward light cone become correlated.

1. That's a quick dismissal of GHZ. It's not a homework exercise, we are talking about a major no-go theorem here. The realistic assumption ("causal locality" in "a model that consists of a set of random variables connected by a collection of conditional probabilities") leads to opposite predictions compared to experiment.

2. Whoa! Another big statement, and yet no peer-reviewed reference supporting your statement. You are basically denying the quantum nature of entanglement. Hmmm. I'll pay you $10 (I'm a cheap bettor, but I'll give you decent odds) if you can find a classical "correlation swapping" example with the following attributes, which are demonstrated in quantum experiments such as this or this.

• a. The photons (or whatever classical objects you prefer) detected by Alice and Bob never exist/interact in a common light cone. Let's call these objects 1 and 4 to match my experimental references.
• b. 1 and 4 cannot be entangled or otherwise made identical in their initial states, because the decision to entangle them (or not) will be made in a remote (FTL distant) place by Chris. So Alice, Bob and Chris are spacelike separated at the time that 1 and 4 become entangled - or correlated, or whatever you care to call it. They are also all spacelike separated when Alice and Bob perform their chosen measurements.
• c. Alice and Bob can choose to measure either i) on any same basis (in which case we must see perfect correlation); or ii) on different bases (a la CHSH, and violating a Bell inequality). I'll be impressed if you can do this for even just case i).
• d. Chris can choose to entangle - or not - the 1 and 4 objects. The observed Alice/Bob correlations must change along with this choice. No correlation if Chris chooses not to classically correlate.

This is impossible in any classical scenario, as it should be obvious - which is why the Remote Entanglement Swapping experiments are critical to interpretation analysis. I certainly have never seen a concrete example that could even remotely (pun intended) pull this off.


Note to moderators: If this is too far off the thread subject, we could split off the discussion. The relationship to the thread subject is that new interpretations should be able to explain experiments like GHZ and Remote Swapping if they are to be taken seriously. Otherwise, we are just dialing the clock back 35 years. Bell sadly passed away before the impact of these newer experiments were evident. I'm certain he would have accepted this important science, and be justifiably proud of what his groundbreaking work has given birth to.

 

[PeterDonis]

As i have shown in this thread

You were thread banned in that thread because what you claim to have "shown" there was not "shown" and you were hijacking the discussion with off topic unjustified claims. Given that, you have now been thread banned from this thread.

 

[kurt101]

2. Whoa! Another big statement, and yet no peer-reviewed reference supporting your statement. You are basically denying the quantum nature of entanglement. Hmmm. I'll pay you $10 (I'm a cheap bettor, but I'll give you decent odds) if you can find a classical "correlation swapping" example with the following attributes, which are demonstrated in quantum experiments such as this or this.

• a. The photons (or whatever classical objects you prefer) detected by Alice and Bob never exist/interact in a common light cone. Let's call these objects 1 and 4 to match my experimental references.
• b. 1 and 4 cannot be entangled or otherwise made identical in their initial states, because the decision to entangle them (or not) will be made in a remote (FTL distant) place by Chris. So Alice, Bob and Chris are spacelike separated at the time that 1 and 4 become entangled - or correlated, or whatever you care to call it. They are also all spacelike separated when Alice and Bob perform their chosen measurements.
• c. Alice and Bob can choose to measure either i) on any same basis (in which case we must see perfect correlation); or ii) on different bases (a la CHSH, and violating a Bell inequality). I'll be impressed if you can do this for even just case i).
• d. Chris can choose to entangle - or not - the 1 and 4 objects. The observed Alice/Bob correlations must change along with this choice. No correlation if Chris chooses not to classically correlate.

This is impossible in any classical scenario, as it should be obvious - which is why the Remote Entanglement Swapping experiments are critical to interpretation analysis. I certainly have never seen a concrete example that could even remotely (pun intended) pull this off.

Would you extend this bet for anyone? And would you extend it for my variant? Can I make the example myself or does it have to be something peer reviewed and published?

I don't deny entanglement. I don't deny entanglement swapping when the swap operation performed at 2 & 3 is performed before (in an absolute time sense) measuring 1 & 4. However, when the measurement on 1 & 4 is performed first (in an absolute time sense) before the swap operation at 2 & 3, I think photons 2 & 3 have all the information about 1 & 4 at the time of the swap operation to decide whether the measurements of 1 & 4 (made in the absolute past) have the property of being entangled or not. And to me this would be the part of the experiment that calls into question the classical nature, but I suppose that depends on what you mean by classical.

 

[PeterDonis]

Can I make the example myself or does it have to be something peer reviewed and published?

Any claim about what QM interpretation says about a scenario needs to be backed up by a published peer reviewed reference.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Would you extend this bet for anyone? ... Can I make the example myself or does it have to be something peer reviewed and published?

2. I don't deny entanglement. I don't deny entanglement swapping when the swap operation performed at 2 & 3 is performed before (in an absolute time sense) measuring 1 & 4. However, when the measurement on 1 & 4 is performed first (in an absolute time sense) before the swap operation at 2 & 3, I think photons 2 & 3 have all the information about 1 & 4 at the time of the swap operation to decide whether the measurements of 1 & 4 (made in the absolute past) have the property of being entangled or not. And to me this would be the part of the experiment that calls into question the classical nature, but I suppose that depends on what you mean by classical.

1. Sure! If you can keep the example simple enough, I'll give it a go. Obviously, it must follow accepted science of some kind (and if an interpretation, it should follow Peter's admonition).

2. Whew... you scared me for a moment. Your idea about order reversal (measuring 1 & 4 before 2 & 3) has one major problem. This issue is normally overlooked by those seeking some kind of traditional causal order where cause precedes effect (a very reasonable expectation, of course).

The final entangled photons are 1 & 4. They become entangled upon successful interaction (indistinguishable overlap) of photons 2 & 3. Let's specify and agree that this interaction of 2 & 3 occurs AFTER 1 & 4 are already detected (per your idea). But here are a couple of other conditions to consider:

a) The angle choices for detection of 1 & 4 are unknown to each other because they are far distant (no signal can travel between them). There are an infinite* number of combinations possible which either show perfect correlations (in each and every case when the angle choices are the same), or violate Bell inequalities via statistical averages (in many cases when the angle choices are different).

b) Likewise, at the time 1 is detected, its entangled partner 2 is far away. Ditto between 3 & 4. No signal can propagate between them. You are going to need to have some kind of remote action at a distance to have 2 "know" how 1 was measured. (But that is what we were trying to avoid!)

c) All cases - and not just some as you might imagine - in which the 2 & 3 photons overlap lead to entanglement of 1 & 4. But there are only 4 permutations of the 2 & 3 photon overlap. Those are the 4 possible Bell states. It is not possible to map those 4 cases to an infinite* number of permutations of choices for measuring 1 & 4. It's just not a wide enough channel. There are only a few variables in a pair of indistinguishable photons (2 & 3). Which is a requirement for a swap.

d) And keep in mind that the decision by Chris to overlap 2 & 3 is in fact made AFTER 1 & 4 are detected. That means that there can be no correlation at all in those cases.

Good luck! I am setting aside your future winnings aside as we speak...


*If it is not infinite, then it's a very large number.

 

[PAllen]

1. That's a quick dismissal of GHZ. It's not a homework exercise, we are talking about a major no-go theorem here. The realistic assumption ("causal locality" in "a model that consists of a set of random variables connected by a collection of conditional probabilities") leads to opposite predictions compared to experiment.

One thing here is that the author uses a new definition of causal locality which is not the same as used in any theorems (and, as @PeterDonis has noted, has arguably no content beyond established 'no messaging' results). Also, his 'hidden reality' is not equivalent to a collection of random variables. So on this question, it seems to me that existing no-go theorems are not applicable. In fact, it seems to me that properties he derives for it make it equivalent to a wave function with different mathematical representation.

 

[PAllen]

The relationship to the thread subject is that new interpretations should be able to explain experiments like GHZ and Remote Swapping if they are to be taken seriously. Otherwise, we are just dialing the clock back 35 years. Bell sadly passed away before the impact of these newer experiments were evident. I'm certain he would have accepted this important science, and be justifiably proud of what his groundbreaking work has given birth to.

This, I strongly agree with. But due to the formal mathematical equivalences demonstrated in the OP references, I think this is likely to be possible. However, the author must do it at some point to be taken seriously.

 

[DrChinese]

One thing here is that the author uses a new definition of causal locality which is not the same as used in any theorems (and, as @PeterDonis has noted, has arguably no content beyond established 'no messaging' results). Also, his 'hidden reality' is not equivalent to a collection of random variables. So on this question, it seems to me that existing no-go theorems are not applicable. In fact, it seems to me that properties he derives for it make it equivalent to a wave function with different mathematical representation.

Well, that's kinda the issue, isn't it? He says here: "one can reformulate quantum theory in terms of old-fashioned configuration spaces together with 'unistochastic' laws. These unistochastic laws take the form of directed conditional probabilities, which turn out to provide a hospitable foundation for encoding microphysical causal relationships. This unistochastic reformulation provides quantum theory with a simpler and more transparent axiomatic foundation, plausibly resolves the measurement problem, and deflates various exotic claims about superposition, interference, and entanglement."

That abstract sounds exotic to me! Superposition and interference are merely "claims? Measurement problem: solved! And entanglement... well I think it is very clear entanglement is a great big target on the back of this formulation. No, you cannot define/redefine the phrase "causal locality" to be different than "local causality", and then expect to dodge GHZ, advanced entanglement issues and the latest no-go's.

That's a far cry from agreeing with the idea that there is signal locality - which as far as I know is disputed by essentially no one. And if in fact you are correct, he has a new mathematical representation: so is it in fact exactly identical (since he drops the standard mathematical methods entirely) ? How would a reader understand that either way? His abstract contains some big claims, and I certainly missed the elements where he convinces of the abstract's claims.

Here is the last sentence of his conclusion, you tell me if he thinks he is onto something different and important. Because it certainly reads to me that the Bell conclusion* (along with GHZ etc.) is being thrown out.

"Remarkably, one therefore arrives at what appears to be a causally local hidden-variables formulation of quantum theory, despite many decades of skepticism that such a theory could exist."


*Which is: "No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics."-DrC

 

[A. Neumaier]

Experiments have confirmed the predictions of QM. I would say that this disproves local realism

Everybody knows that local realism has been disproved with high confidence.

But it could also be considered as disproving realism

Realism need not be local in Bell's sense.

To match Nature, it is enough that it is local in the sense of quantum field theory. Indeed, neither Bell experiments nor GHZ experiments testify against quantum field theory. The latter has a nonlocal realist interpretation, namely the thermal interpretation. See also Quantum mechanics via quantum tomography.

 

[kurt101]

b) Likewise, at the time 1 is detected, its entangled partner 2 is far away. Ditto between 3 & 4. No signal can propagate between them. You are going to need to have some kind of remote action at a distance to have 2 "know" how 1 was measured. (But that is what we were trying to avoid!)

You are correct, I need to have some kind of remote action. So is ok to have remote action as long as it is impossible to use that remote action in any way to communicate a signal?

Does the following classical model seem accurate and acceptable for such a bet?

The state of photon 1 is measured and this causes the remote action that changes the state of photon 2. This is ok to do as long as the action can't be exploited to communicate a signal.
Likewise, the state of photon 4 is measured and this causes the remote action that changes the state of photon 3. And likewise this is ok as long as the action can't be exploited to communicate a signal.
Photons 2 and 3 enter the BSM. The BSM will result in 4 possible states each with a 25% probability. The BSM can only calculate the states using the local state variables of photons 2 and 3 as they enter the BSM. The 4 states will be used to group the corresponding measurements of photons 1 and 4 into 4 different buckets where each bucket must show a maximum entangled correlation between the photons 1 and 4.

Good luck! I am setting aside your future winnings aside as we speak...

I am not ready to accept the challenge yet. I need to think about this further and better understand the 4 bell states and how I would present an argument without violating rules.

From my perspective, either way I win. As paying $10 and learning I am wrong is as valuable as learning I am right.

 

[PeterDonis]

Does the following classical model seem accurate

How is your model "classical"? What theory of classical physics includes the kind of "remote action" you are postulating?

 

[kurt101]

How is your model "classical"? What theory of classical physics includes the kind of "remote action" you are postulating?

I agree that part is not classical, but I understood @DrChinese use of the term classical to mean classical thinking with cause and effect reasoning and not anything to do with entanglement. Here is the context of his comment:
" but I'll give you decent odds) if you can find a classical "correlation swapping" example with the following attributes, which are demonstrated in quantum experiments such as this or this."

 

[PeterDonis]

I understood @DrChinese use of the term classical to mean classical thinking with cause and effect reasoning and not anything to do with entanglement.

I would strongly advise you to ask @DrChinese what he meant instead of assuming--particularly as you have a bet down.

Also note that your "remote action" is entanglement. Again, there would be no such "remote action" with classical particles. You have to have entangled quantum particles for it to work.

 

[kurt101]

I would strongly advise you to ask @DrChinese what he meant instead of assuming--particularly as you have a bet down.

Yes and that is why I did ask. "Does the following classical model seem accurate and acceptable for such a bet?"

 

[PeterDonis]

Yes and that is why I did ask. "Does the following classical model seem accurate and acceptable for such a bet?"

It isn't a classical model. Read the rest of my post #55 (I edited it because I hit "post" too soon).

 

[kurt101]

Also note that your "remote action" is entanglement. Again, there would be no such "remote action" with classical particles. You have to have entangled quantum particles for it to work.

Yes, I agree and I agree that technically that would not make my the model classical. If you want me to edit my original message and remove the word "classical" I am fine with doing that. Or I could just try to go for word salad to describe my model: realist, causal, cause and effect, non-local realism, deterministic. I am never sure what the correct terminology to use on this forum is as we get into endless debates over terminology (maybe for good reason as people on this forum have so much trouble understanding each other). So in general I try to use terminology how the other person I am corresponding it used it and try to get them to explain misunderstandings.

 

[PeterDonis]

I agree that technically that would not make my the model classical.

No "technically" about it. The model isn't classical and therefore does not meet the requirement @DrChinese gave in the bet he offered.

What other terminology you want to use to describe your model is immaterial: all you're doing is restating what the QM wave function does in different language.

 

[kurt101]

No "technically" about it. The model isn't classical and therefore does not meet the requirement @DrChinese gave in the bet he offered.

This is just very confusing. Maybe you can try to clarify. @Morbert who isn't denying entanglement says
"That the photons have never existed in a common backward light cone does not pose any additional challenge to the question of locality beyond standard EPRB because, in the same way the EPRB system is a noncommutative generalization of a classical system, entanglement swapping experiments are are nocommutative generalization of a "correlation swapping" classical experiments where two classical systems that have never existed in a common backward light cone become correlated."

He seems to be talking about classicality of the correlation between two systems (whether the systems are classical or treated as quantum). I disagree with @Morbert statement in general, but I think he correct for the case that I am discussing.

Then @DrChinese replies to @Morbert and says
"if you can find a classical "correlation swapping" example with the following attributes, which are demonstrated in quantum experiments such as this or this."

And I am trying to find a classical correlation swapping example that @DrChinese is wagering the bet on, but where I differ from @Morbert is I only think it happens in the case where the 2 & 3 swap is done last.

@PeterDonis I don't think you are helping as you seem to be giving your own spin on this conversation. I think I am best off hearing it from the horses mouth @DrChinese. I am not saying your wrong about what @DrChinese means, but as far as I can tell you are saying different things.