EPR Experiment with Pool Balls

[Ilja]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Are you talking about for use in EPR experiments? Or what is this in reference to?

We need random number generators as for the "ideal" EPR-Bell-experiment, as in general for a reasonable notion of causality.

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ilja
We need random number generators as for the "ideal" EPR-Bell-experiment, as in general for a reasonable notion of causality.

The Innsbruck EPR experiments (1998) used independent random numbers generated from physical processes. The results were not correalated until well after the end of the experiment. I think that should pass muster. They took great pains to insure that locality was actually being tested.

Although they too used the "fair sampling" assumption, their refined tests showed increasing agreement with the predictions of QM, and the Inequality was violated by 30 standard deviations. This represents an advance over the Aspect results, which I believe were 5 standard deviations.

 

[agnostictheist]

You see here is the problem I have with the EPR, and that is the universe does not need to be local (from what I read).


In the many-worlds, interpration... the bell experiement and its variants I assume,
there will appear of form the prespective of the obervers that the EPR is real, but in fact - if I recall and I will find the link and correct myself if i recall incorrectly, is that not the universe spilts but rather the obervers, detectors etc do. Also what apparaently again I will confrim or correct meself, is that how can a wavefunction calapse if say objects are moving at different speeds this will somewhat alter the chain of "what comes frist" and the importance of this is that is purely realtive what photon, etc or measurment actually collapse the wavefunction!

like I said this is subject to major corrections and I find the source of the links.

cheers.

 

[nightlight]

DrChinese
The Innsbruck EPR experiments (1998) ...

Although they too used the "fair sampling" assumption, their refined tests showed increasing agreement with the predictions of QM, and the Inequality was violated by 30 standard deviations. This represents an advance over the Aspect results, which I believe were 5 standard deviations.

The experiments also showed not merely the "increasing", but, as always, the full agreement with the local realistic theories such as SED/Stochastic Optics (as well as with the standard Quantum Optics models of the actual setups). And, of course, without requiring the untested and massive data extrapolation, wishfully labeled "fair sampling" (which amounts to an equivalent of having 90% of "data" put in by hand) in order to satisfy the so-called "ideal QM prediction" (a prediction based on Bohr-von Neumann "Measurement Theory"/Projection postulate).

The heretics from Bohr-von Neumann Orthodoxy, among others the key founders of the Quantum Theory - Planck, Einstein, de Broglie and Schroedinger, were and are right -- Quantum Theory doesn't need the parasitic non-physical projection postulate (wave function collapse) mysticism (or its even more absurd alternatives, such as "Many Worlds" metaphysics). And without it, there is no "Bell's QM prediction" (deduced via the Projection Postulate) which violates the local realism or the need to "fudge" the results to obtain the "increasing" agreement with such "prediction".

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by nightlight
The experiments also showed not merely the "increasing", but, as always, the full agreement with the local realistic theories such as SED/Stochastic Optics (as well as with the standard Quantum Optics models of the actual setups). And, of course, without requiring the untested and massive data extrapolation, wishfully labeled "fair sampling" (which amounts to an equivalent of having 90% of "data" put in by hand) in order to satisfy the so-called "ideal QM prediction" (a prediction based on Bohr-von Neumann "Measurement Theory"/Projection postulate).

The heretics from Bohr-von Neumann Orthodoxy, among others the key founders of the Quantum Theory - Planck, Einstein, de Broglie and Schroedinger, were and are right -- Quantum Theory doesn't need the parasitic non-physical projection postulate (wave function collapse) mysticism (or its even more absurd alternatives, such as "Many Worlds" metaphysics). And without it, there is no "Bell's QM prediction" (deduced via the Projection Postulate) which violates the local realism or the need to "fudge" the results to obtain the "increasing" agreement with such "prediction".

nightlight,

When new and independent experiments provide increasing agreement with theoretical predictions against local reality, the norm is to acknowledge the obvious and look for constructive avenues for further research. It is completely reasonable that an independent observer to the fracas would deduce that some people are arguing from an emotionally charged position, while others are letting experimental results do the talking.

If there is a reasonable experiment which will today provide us with more information that we now have, where is it? Until the future you speak of arrives - the one where X >> 5% current detections are seen - I am really not sure of what you are getting at. You may as well say we don't know anything about anything.

Quantum theory has yielded experimental prediction after experimental prediction, many of which have been essentially verified in all material respects, There has not been - since its introduction - any competing theory which has yielded a single testable prediction in opposition of QM which has been experimentally verified. The Copenhagen Interpretation is silent on the subject of local reality, and theories which advocate local reality have been repeatedly falsified with increasing exactness. So if you have something positive to advance things, we are listening. Otherwise your position seems like sour grapes.

Hey, I would have bet money that the speed of light c was an absolute speed limit too. But recent tests of the recession velocity of ancient galaxies and quasars show hundreds with velocities exceeding 2c, with the latest oldest showing a recession velocity in excess of 3c. What am I going to do, reject all non-conforming experimental evidence that goes against my viewpoint? We have to advance via useful debate, and the position you are advocating fails the test - even if you are ultimately right. I can learn to live with a universe which is expanding faster than c. I am quite sure you can live without local reality.

 

[agnostictheist]

Ok Drchinese and nightlight you too seem to know lots, so if you don't mind I am going to take lessons from you, while I do know bits and peices of QM and EPR, I don't claim to be an expert, my maths is awful so please try to aviod or help me around it, and my degree is in chemistry so i might know somethings form that prespectve, that might be wrong in a QM pure sense.

Ok

What do we actually mean by local?

If i remmber correctly is local been used by some has an attempt to regain some sense of causality - YES I am aware of the issue of casulity on a philosophical issue and argee with Hume by in large, and kant is not so unreasonble in part either.

if I remmber also a local theory suggests that space is some what "reductionist" while the EPR seems to indicate some kind of holist nature to the universe, that what you might do to one side, you do to anther.

also there is no "specfic character" to say an electron, or photon until we measure it.

the suggestion of many-worlds being a meta-theory is a correct one, but that's not reason to fog it off, I am a firm beleiver that we should rule out via levels of certainty (beyond a reasonible doudt) sure it might be an emotional charge, but on the other hand it might also be rather rush to conclude without attempting alternatives.

can you two or one of you explain to be better than I have how the many-worlds, suggests a local universe rather than a non-local one.? has you will probably do a dam fine job.

thanks kindly.


additonal correction:

nonlocal is when information travels faster than light... I omitted this.

 

[nightlight]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Quantum theory has yielded experimental prediction after experimental prediction, many of which have been essentially verified in all material respects,

This sucesses of Quantum Theory owe not a single penny to the projection/collapse postulate. That is an independent QM postulate (not needed or used by QED or QCD or non-relativistic QM applications, such as solid state, chemistry etc) and its sole decisive test is the question whether the Bell's QM prediction can violate Bell's inequality in any experiment. That hasn't happened after over three decades of trying, not even close.

The absurd aspect that you and others here seem unaware of is that Bell's QM prediction which violates Bell Inequality is deduced using, as the essential step, the Collapse Postulate. At the same time the only rationale for that postulate was the historical misconception that no hidden variable theory can replicate the empirical QM predictions, even in principle.

During the Bohr-Enstein debate of 1920s, Bohr had used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as the QM theoretical basis for the HV impossibility presumption. The entangled states demonstrated unambiguously that HUP cannot work as the "hidden variable impossibility" proof (as the original EPR argument and the related Schroedinger arguments demonstrated; Einstein & Schroedinger never accepted HUP as the HV impossibility proof anyway).

Having lost the HUP as the basis for the HV impossibility, the Orthodoxy switched its basis to the von Neumann's HV impossibility theorem. That one turned out to be invalid (as an HV impossibility theorem), too. Then Bell came up with the weaker HV impossibility proof, claiming to show that only the Local HV theories are impossible (contradict QM empirical predictions). And that theorem, the Bell's claim that his QM prediction violates LHV inequality, is presently the only rationale for needing the Collapse Postulate at all (otherwise, without Bell's theorem, one could assume that objects have properties all along and the measurement merely uncovers them).

The absurd aspect is that in order to prove the LHV impossibility, Bell uses the Collapse Postulate, while the only remaining present day rationale for the Collapse Postulate is none other than the Bell's LHV impossibility claim. You can drop both items, Bell's QM prediction violating LHV inequality (violation that was never achieved experimentally, anyway) and the Collapse Postulate and nothing will be taken away from all the decades of Quantum Theory successes -- nothing else depends on either item (that's precisely why the Bell-EPR tests had to be done in the first place -- no other empirical consequences require Collapse Postulate).

So if you have something positive to advance things, we are listening. Otherwise your position seems like sour grapes.

That's a completely upside-down characterization. It is precisely the LHV impossibility dogma (the Bell's no-go theorem claim) held by the Orthodoxy that keeps the doors locked to potential advancements (in the same way that the geo-centric dogma has held up the progress of astronomy for centuries). There is no analogy at all to the sour grapes metaphor in the position of the critics. Had the collapse postulate been the essential element of the successes of the Quantum Theory, then the critics could exhibit sour-grape emotion. But the "collapse" not only wasn't the essential element of the successes, it has nothing at all to do with the QT successes. It is so purely gratuitous add-on that the EPR-Bell setup had to be thought up for the sole purpose of bringing up a situation where the "collapse" may play some empirical role at all (if the collapse occurs as imagined, it should have produced the Bell inequality violations; and as we all know, that violation hasn't happened as yet).

Therefore, I consider the critique by the "heretics" (from Einstein and Schroedinger through Marshall-Santos and other present day QM heretics, including the super-star of theoretical physics, Gerard 't Hooft, his initial doubts going back at least to 1996) of this empirically unsupported no-go dogma a positive contribution to the physics.