Does Quantum Entanglement Imply Faster-Than-Light Interaction?

[Delta Kilo]

Going back to the slide shot you attached to your last post - it says "No ... theory (in the spirit of Einstein's ideas) can reproduce QM predictions..." - I put the critical aspect of it in bold - it is that potentially flawed spirit of Einsteinian ideas which suggests a linear curve.

You do realize Einstein had quite a few ideas during his career. Many of them were brilliant, a few of them turned out to be incorrect.

it is a fundamental property of aether which is responsible for the non-linear curve of QM predictions.

Oh no. Please, no. If it is locally-realistic in EPR sense then it violates Bell's inequality, aether or no aether.

You demand of me, a non-mathematician to explain in math something mathematicians fail to do... well la-de-da :)

No, I expect you to at least read the works you are trying to disprove. I believe DrChinese has them all on his web site.
While I agree that QM uses rather fancy math, there are several derivations of Bell's inequality out there that do not require anything beyond simple arithmetics.

 

[afstgl]

First of all, I really doubt nature cares about math, people like you say nature works in math but the truth is math is written in attempts to formulate nature, more or less... Then... nature probably cares little about Bell's inequality as well, the quantum correlation curve is smooth and proportional, showing an obvious relation between relative angles and outcome.

Let me ask you this, is the curve for reflection/refraction vs angle a LINEAR ONE? If so, I withdraw my statements, but from what I was able to find on google, angle of incidence vs reflectance and refractance was not linear.

Also, doesn't Occam's razor demand the fewest assumptions as possible?

 

[DrChinese]

DrChinese - I understand your last post perfectly, it seems that it is you who cannot understand how I understand the mechanics of this experiment, perfectly logical without any hidden variables at all.

It is somewhat humorous to see someone relish in their ignorance as if it is a virtue.

Your ideas are useless because they do not describe the results of experiments correctly. Of course, they may work in the limited ones you happen to pick, but there are probably a thousand others that they fail. As long as you don't want to take the time and effort to understand those, you will return to the same point as I predicted in an earlier post.

So let me know when you want to learn about Bell. Not that hard.

 

[dlgoff]

What IF people like Maxwell were on the right track and people like Einstein "accidentally" derailed science from this track for the sake of simplification or whatever? You demand of me, a non-mathematician to explain in math something mathematicians fail to do... well la-de-da :)

Okay. I'm a lowly QM learner. I need references. If you don't have math savvy, how can you possibility show an accidental derailment of science:

First of all, I really doubt nature cares about math, people like you say nature works in math but the truth is math is written in attempts to formulate nature, more or less...

Is that so? Give me a break. Wait. Didn't you just say "You demand of me, a not-mathematican to explain in math..."?

 

[DrChinese]

Well, that is just the thing, QM prediction are derived 100% experimentally, there is absolutely no math involved in the derivation of the cosine curve, abstract math is only used to formulate the predictions, not to derive them.

This is completely wrong, as per usual with your recent statements. But we all know you wouldn't want to be burdened with learning facts before forming opinions.

 

[afstgl]

This is completely wrong, as per usual with your recent statements. But we all know you wouldn't want to be burdened with learning facts before forming opinions.

Aren't you getting a little personal and offensive here? Of course that I care, but not about each and every "fact" especially when it is potentially a wrong one. Why would I force myself to learn something which would make me understand less?

I see a way that explains the outcome of the Bell experiment in a simple and classical way, without any "quantum magic", and you tell me this is because I don't understand and agree with a theory, which if I did agree with, I wouldn't be able to explain the experiment and instead settle for it being not a product of logic and reason, but "predictions" based on experiments...

DrChinese - you say a hidden variable theory would need a separate hidden variable for every angle. Yet experiments return a PERFECT squared cosine function, obviously no separate hidden variable is needed for every angle, since there is an obvious relation between angle and correlation, symmetrical, proportional and so on, thus only ONE SINGLE hidden variable is needed - a squared cosine function that determines odds in the picture example I posed on the previous page of the discussion.

We have a comparison between two results at a relative angle, and the outcome is a simple matter of reflection and refraction indexes for those angles in aether spacetime "fabric". I specifically asked if the relation between reflectance/refractance vs incident angle is linear, which would produce the linear result, but no one answered that question.

However, I found graphs which demonstrate not only that the relation is not linear, but closer to exponential, which makes it in agreement with my idea. At lower angles there is very little chance of -1 correlation and it progressively goes to 50/50 at 90 degree

The reason entanglement seems to be destroyed upon measurement, even if there is no such thing as entanglement, is that measurement physically affects particles and induces a change from their initial state. Measuring at different relative angles practically induces changes or transformations at those angles. In fact recently published papers proved 'Quantum Magic' without any 'Spooky Action at a Distance' in a system where entanglement was not possible and results still could not be interpreted classically
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

Particles are not entangled, they are simply "synced", they are not in an undetermined quantum superposition state, they are defined from the moment of their creation, no matter whether they are correlated or anti-correlated, and it is simple, classical mechanics which determine the "quantum" correlation result according to relative angle. When particles are measured, no collapse occurs, no FTL process takes place to define their already defined at creation states, particles only get disturbed so that they are no longer in sync with each other.

Maxwell's original quaternion equations were later reduced and vectorized, and along this his concepts of ELECTROMAGNETIC TOPOLOGY were DRAMATICALLY REDUCED, eventually leading to a theory of modern classical physics which cannot explain the cosine relation between angle of measurement and quantum correlation and requires "quantum magic". That is what Bell says - modern classical physics cannot explain the squared cosine relation, but that is because of the fact modern classical physics does not account for the actual EM topology, Bell is right because he looks through a wrong prism, but without it there is nothing strange, mysterious or weird about it, those "predictions" are perfectly explainable in a classical way, without damaging the potential implication and practical benefits of this fundamental universal principle. This however, would hurt the over 70 years spent on QM, rendering a large portion of that work obsolete and unnecessary, and from my experience, science seem to have gotten overconfident and incapable of admitting an eventual wrongness. Better keep it complex and mysterious, to justify the 70+ years of research and the many millions spent, and what is more important, ensure many more millions in the future rather than falling back to a simple, classical interpretation which relies on a CERTAIN fundamental principle of physics, which will also have it benefits if applied to regular physics, not to mention finally achieve a UNIFIED physics theory and its potential benefits.

So no hidden variables, just a "hidden in plain sight" and "vastly ignored" fundamental principle...

 

[unusualname]

afstgl, these things have been discussed hundreds of times on this forum alone, you ideas are really ruled out by modern science experiments, if you don't like Bell inequalities then there are GHZ states for example which don't require an inequality to refute classical realism.

In post 1 you present a simplistic argument that is normally referred to as Bertlmann's socks after a paper by John Bell himself. That is NOT the way QM works, and this has been proved beyond doubt by many experiments in the last 2 or 3 decades.

 

[afstgl]

there are GHZ states for example which don't require an inequality to refute classical realism.

Care to elaborate?

 

[unusualname]

Care to elaborate?

This stuff is so well-known that you really shouldn't be posting here if you are not aware of modern science results, do a google search, read this article:

Going Beyond Bell's Theorem

and read DrChinese's site, he has made painstaking efforts to explain all this for several years.

 

[Doc Al]

I see a way that explains the outcome of the Bell experiment in a simple and classical way, without any "quantum magic", and you tell me this is because I don't understand and agree with a theory, which if I did agree with, I wouldn't be able to explain the experiment and instead settle for it being not a product of logic and reason, but "predictions" based on experiments...

DrChinese - you say a hidden variable theory would need a separate hidden variable for every angle. Yet experiments return a PERFECT squared cosine function, obviously no separate hidden variable is needed for every angle, since there is an obvious relation between angle and correlation, symmetrical, proportional and so on, thus only ONE SINGLE hidden variable is needed - a squared cosine function that determines odds in the picture example I posed on the previous page of the discussion.

The hidden variables denied by Bell's theorem are local hidden variables. The cosine of the angle between measurements is explicitly non-local and thus irrelevant. (We already know that cosine squared relationship--the trick is to explain it using local variables.)