- #1
whiteboard1
- 2
- 0
how can we know the state of particle which is far? Is the quantum mechanical result right?
Bryan Sanctuar said:In the EPR paradox, using a singlet state, the quantum result is calculated easily after an undergrad course in quantum. Using the singlet state, the correlation between two spins as they encounter filters oriented along vector a and b is <sigma(a)sigma(b)> = -a.b
Now this -a.b is experimentally confirmed, so that means to a lot of people (not me) that the singlet state stretches out between the two particles. This, of course, is non-locality, firmly established in physics but not believe by me.
Your question is: what is the state of these separated particles? Some people believe that each EPR particle carries "half a quantum state" (That is half the entangled singlet--poppycock) I do not believe that.
If you assume spin has two axes of quantization, rather than one, then each spin carries a complete quantum state and their product accounts for the EPR correlation. This state is a superposition of the two axes of quantization and has eigenvalues of +/-root(2) rather than +/-1. If you measure that spin, you get the usual point particle spin because one orthogonal axis decohers.
...
DrChinese said:This is not correct, and is easily refuted by the Bell logic. You should not be posting stuff such as the above. Please check forum rules regarding personal theories which are in disagreement with established science.
Bryan Sanctuar said:Non-locality makes no sense. It must, therefore, be wrong.
DrChinese said:That it makes sense or not misses the point of science, which is to describe as best possible.
Either there is non-locality, or there is non-realism (or both). Bell's Theorem shows us such, and I can only assume you are not familiar with it. We have no obligation to review your model for mistakes, but by the forum rules you have an obligation NOT to post links such as above to unpublished material. So please cease, the next time you post similar to the above I will report you.
Bryan Sanctuar said:I am not asking you to review my model for mistakes, just have an open mind to new ideas.
I am submitting the paper to Physical Review A within the next week.
whiteboard1 said:how can we know the state of particle which is far? Is the quantum mechanical result right?
No, you have not. I have no idea what you misunderstood or do wrong in you simulations. But this is precisely what Bell showed is mathematically impossible. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, nor common sense. Just mathematics. He showed that any local and objective ("real") model has limits on correlations between separated measurements. If the model you simulated was both local and real, it would obey those limits. In certain setups however, quantum mechanics predicts results that violate those limits. Which is not that surprising since QM looks explicitly non-local (or non-objective depending on which interpretation you prefer). What is surprising and really intriguing is that experimental results violates those limits too. They happen to agree with the QM predictions as well (but that's not the important point!).Bryan Sanctuar said:I have simulated the EPR correlations, one coincidence at a time and these agree completely with experiment and quantum mechanics. The model is both local and real.
This is not correct and shows that you did not understand Bell's theorem. Bell makes two assumptions when deriving his limits; locality and some form of objectivity. But the whole point of the theorem is that when results do violate those limit, those results can never be reproduced by any local and objective theory.Bryan Sanctuar said:First Bell's theorem follows from believing Einstein Locality is incorrect in order to get the violation.
That the speed of light should be constant for all observers make no sense to my intuition. Must it therefore also be wrong? No - science is all about keeping an open mind and accepting what repeatable experiments shows us.Bryan Sanctuar said:Non-locality makes no sense. It must, therefore, be wrong.
Dali said:So if one measures the spin of one of the particles to be say -1/2 one instantly knows the spin of the other one is +1/2 (along the same axis of measurement).
And, yes, all experiments so far agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics.
What Bell has shown is something different, namely that von Neumann has made, in his proof, assumptions which have been unreasonable. In particular, there was the example of de Broglie-Bohm theory, which is a completely reasonable hidden variable theory. And this theory violates an assumption used by von Neumann.Bryan Sanctuar said:I can assure you that I am fully versed in Bell's work and, like quite a few others, believe that Bell's theorem is incorrect. After all Bell showed that von Neumann was incorrect, so why cannot I claim that Bell is incorrect, especially when I have objective reasons for it?
Wrong. This would be an interesting question, but there is no such obligation.If Bell's theorem is correct, then you have to explain in a scientific way how non-locality works.
jk22 said:Btw if we look at the experimental result concerning EPRB, I could find 3 experiments measuring CHSH, the values are :
Aspect : 2.69, error 0.05
Gisin : 2.38 error .09
Wineland : 2.25 error .05
we see that all 3 a greater than 2, hence implying a kind of non-locality according to Bell. However considering the experimental errors there is no overlap of the results possible. Does this mean that the error is in fact bigger than measured, or that we cannot compare in that way different experiments ?
jk22 said:Btw if we look at the experimental result concerning EPRB, I could find 3 experiments measuring CHSH, the values are :
Aspect : 2.69, error 0.05
Gisin : 2.38 error .09
Wineland : 2.25 error .05
we see that all 3 a greater than 2, hence implying a kind of non-locality according to Bell. However considering the experimental errors there is no overlap of the results possible. Does this mean that the error is in fact bigger than measured, or that we cannot compare in that way different experiments ?
craigi said:If...it is very likely that one or more of those measurements involved some significant, unaccounted for, systematic error.
DrChinese said:OK, take a deep breath here. These are top experimental teams (Wineland won the Nobel last year, for example). There is no reason to speculate like this. Please stick to the science.
craigi said:Sure, I'm not suggesting that they aren't experts. I'm just looking at those errors and thinking 5 standard deviations is a lot. Wouldn't you agree?
Systematic errors do end up in experiments. Do you remember the faster than light neutrino experimets recently?
DrChinese said:You mean, the neutrino experiment that could not be replicated?
As I said, the EPR experiments are not identical for a lot of reasons. There are hundreds of ways to test local realism, and the boundary of 2 is somewhat artificial. By convention, most experiments are designed to make it that 2 is the boundary. On the other hand, any pair analyzed which is not entangled at the time (due to inefficiency) gives a result closer to 2. So there are a lot of variables at play.
And therefore the results of Wineland's experiment will not match the result of Zeilinger, and yet both rule out local realism.
StevieTNZ said:So the question is:
If a Bell inequality (or in this matter CHSH inequality) test results in >2, then local realism is ruled out.
But what about verifying the QM predictions? Surely all three results don't verify QM predictions as they differ so significantly. What is the QM prediction for entanglement experiments, such as those experiments whose results were easier stated?
DrChinese said:Each experiment discusses the QM expectation, which is calculated according to their setup. There is no specific disagreement between experiments. Read any two, and if you are unsure of this point, let's discuss. Just give me the names of them.
StevieTNZ said:So what I gather is a QM prediction is calculated in accord with their set-up, and each three measurement results posted earlier fall within each of those calculated predictions?
DrChinese said:From Wineland et al:
Result: 2.25 +/- .03
"If we take into account the imperfections of our experiment (imperfect state fidelity, manipulations, and detection), this value agrees with the prediction of quantum mechanics.
jk22 said:This agree with QM in the sense that it's bigger than 2 (hence non-local), but the QM prediction is 2.82 ([tex]2\sqrt{2}[/tex]) for that measurement.
StevieTNZ said:Its just when people say that they performed an entanglement experiment and got results in agreement with predictions, the ones listed above are no-where near the QM prediction.
StevieTNZ said:Its just when people say that they performed an entanglement experiment and got results in agreement with predictions, the ones listed above are no-where near the QM prediction.
DrChinese said:I appreciate that you see it as 2.82, but Wineland's team has a different value for their setup. As I say, each setup has different issues and you should not compare one directly to the other. Although you are determined to do that anyway...
jk22 said:My question then is how do they calculate the value for their setup ? Reading Bell's original work shows 2 things : local realism limits CHSH to 2, and QM gives 2.82 as prediction.
I found no trace of a theoretical calculation to obtain 2.37 in that experiment.