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

[DrChinese]

... of ignorance.

...of Dataset. Why program when data is not ambiguous? Ah, because there is no data matching the claim. Otherwise, the programmer would merely execute his program and show us the dataset.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Why program when data is not ambiguous?

OMG! I’m dying x 2!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Great explanation DrC. Now... I just wonder... how billschnieder is going to mess-up this beautiful and simple explanation...? Huh? Maybe some "chains" of probability? Maybe some hilarious (Monty) Python code? Or maybe a groundless personal attack??

I’m going for the later: billschnieder are now going to accuse you for not answering his question, ...

This is bait-and-switch. Those following the discussion know exactly what I am addressing which is different from your misrepresentation of my position.

Of course I’m laughing in triumph. I was right!

Only a totally deranged oddball, locked in the Cranky Cave of Grandmaster Crackpot Kracklauer, would repeatedly continue this head-banging lunacy, which we now are experiencing in this and other threads on PF. You have by far driven this brainless "tactic" over the edge of hilarious parody, and I can assure you – I’m not the only one laughing out loud.

Python is free (http://www.python.org/download/), and it takes 1 minute to install and test my code. Anyone with more than one braincell will actually run the code BEFORE triumphantly proclaiming their idiocy with an outburst such as yours

Please Mr. BS, don’t be mad. Once again you have misinterpreted everything about everything. The numeric example "0*0" was not referring to your silly little code, but your brain cells. The recommendation to not even spend even 1 minute on this intellectual fraud still remains solid, because you’re trying to "prove" something that solely exists inside your own crooked head, and not outside, in the real world of balanced and sincere scientists.

The question I am addressing is the clearly the following:
"Is action at a distance a possible conclusion from Bell's inequalities and the results of Bell-test experiments?"

And here we go again. Not even wrong. You’re all over the place with your skewed picture of mainstream science. Deliberately or not, you’re leaving out the most important part in Bell's theorem:

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."​

Consequently, your "personal theories" is an attack on the predictions of quantum mechanics, more than anything else, and I do hope you truly realize what this means, and how utterly ridiculous 10 lines of iterative Python code are in the light of this fact. That’s why we are all laughing.

But, maybe this oddball "approach" is perfectly "natural" to you, having Crackpot Kracklauer as the one and only guiding "star".

My answer to the above question can be summarized in the following points which remain unchallenged:
1) Bell's inequalities can be derived from triples of dichotomous variables without any physical assumption
2) In Bell-test experiments only pairs of values are ever collected at a time (a dataset of pairs)
3) A dataset of pairs can be made to violate inequalities derived from a dataset of triples for purely mathematical reasons
4) I have provided mathematical proof of (1), (2) is an accepted fact. I have provided proof of (3) via simulation
5) Therefore, the violation of Bell's inequalities derived from triples, by experiments such as Bell-test experiments which only collect pairs, is not surprising, it is expected for purely mathematical reasons, having nothing to do with realism or locality.
6) Therefore, Bell's inequality can never be violated by a dataset of triples, even if the physical assumption of of spooky action at a distance is mandated!

Now if anyone thinks my answer is wrong, be specific, about which of the above claims is false, and why it is false.

Maybe someone thinks I’m too harsh, accusing you for being an intellectual fraud. But, here’s the proof:

1) Bell's ansatz (equation 2 in his paper) correctly represent those local-causal hidden variables
2). Bell's ansatz necessarily lead to Bell's inequalities
3). Experiments violate Bell's inequalities
Conclusion: Therefore the real physical situation of the experiments is not Locally causal.

There is no doubt in my mind that statement (2) has been proven mathematically since I do not know of any mathematical errors in Bells derivation. Similarly, there is very little doubt in my mind that experiments have effectively demonstrated that Bell's inequalities are violated. I say little doubt because no loophole-free experiments have yet been performed but for the sake of this discussion we can assume that loopholes do not matter.

No mathematical errors in Bells derivation. Well, well, well, what happened here??


What happened is that JesseM proved, by immense patience and great skills, that your "chains of probability" where dead wrong. Then you changed your madcap "approach" to the "triplet mess". Once again JesseM where about to prove you wrong, and to get out of this, you started a totally groundless personal attack on JesseM:

I did respond to that post, but I didn't end up responding to your later post #128 on the subject here because before I got to it you said you didn't want to talk to me any more unless I agreed to make my posts as short as you wanted them to be and for me not to include discussions of things I thought were relevant if you didn't agree they were relevant.

As you no doubt remember I gave extended arguments and detailed questions intended to show why your claims that Bell's theorem is theoretically flawed or untestable don't make sense, but you failed to respond to most of my questions and arguments and then abruptly shut down the discussion, in multiple cases (As with my posts here and here where I pointed out that your argument about the failure of the 'principle of common cause' ignored the specific types of conditions where it failed as outlined in the Stanford Encyclopedia article you were using as a reference, and I asked you to directly address my argument about past light cones in a local realist universe without relying on nonapplicable statements from the encyclopedia article. Your response here was to ignore all the specific quotes I gave you about the nature of the required conditions and declare that you'd decided we'd have to 'agree to disagree' on the matter rather than discuss it further...if you ever change your mind and decide to actually address the light cone argument in a thoughtful way, you might start by saying whether you disagree with anything in post #63 here).

Then you continued the crazy "triplet mess", knowing that JesseM would prove your initial attack on Bell dead wrong:

The facts are the following:
1) Bell's inequality is derived assuming 3 values per dataset point
2) Bell-test experiments measure 2 values per dataset point
3) Bell-test experiments violate Bell's inequalities

JesseM showed patience:

So this critique appears to be rather specific to the Leggett-Garg inequality, maybe you could come up with a variation for other inequalities but it isn't obvious to me ...

But you continued your wacky crankiness:

This is not a valid criticism for the following reason:

1) You do not deny that the LGI is a Bell-type inequality. Why do you think it is called that?
2) You have not convincingly argued why the LGI should not apply to the situation described in the example I presented
3) You do not deny the fact that in the example I presented, the inequalities can be violated simply based on how the data is indexed.
4) You do not deny the fact that in the example, there is no way to ensure the data is correctly indexed unless all relevant parameters are known by the experimenters
5) You do not deny that Bell's inequalities involve pairs from a set of triples (a,b,c) and yet experiments involve triples from a set of pairs.
6) You do not deny that it is impossible to measure triples in any EPR-type experiment, therefore Bell-type inequalities do not apply to those experiments. Boole had shown 100+ years ago that you can not substitute Rij for Sij in those type of inequalities.

JesseM tried to explain:

5) You do not deny that Bell's inequalities involve pairs from a set of triples (a,b,c) and yet experiments involve triples from a set of pairs.

I certainly deny this too, in fact I don't know what you can be talking about here. Different inequalities involve different numbers of possible detector settings, but if you look at any particular experiment designed to test a particular inequality, you always find the same number of possible detector settings in the inequality as in the experiment. If you disagree, point me to a particular experiment where you think this wasn't true!

6) You do not deny that it is impossible to measure triples in any EPR-type experiment, therefore Bell-type inequalities do not apply to those experiments. Boole had shown 100+ years ago that you can not substitute Rij for Sij in those type of inequalities.

This one is so obviously silly you really should know better. The Bell-type inequalities are based on the theoretical assumption that on each trial there is a λ which either predetermines a definition outcome for each of the three detector settings (like the 'hidden fruits' that are assumed to be behind each box on my scratch lotto analogy), or at least predetermines a probability for each of the three which is not influenced by what happens to the other particle at the other detector (i.e. P(A|aλ) is not different from P(A|Bbaλ)). If this theoretical assumption were valid, and the probability of different values of λ on each trial did not depend on the detector settings a and b on that trial, then this would be a perfectly valid situation where these inequalities would be predicted to hold. Of course we don't know if these theoretical assumptions actually hold in the real world, but that's the point of testing whether the inequalities hold up in the real world--if they don't, and our experiments meet the necessary observable conditions that were assumed in the derivation, then this constitutes an experimental falsification of one of the predictions of our original theoretical assumptions.

But you are still continuing your ridiculous crusade against John Bell, without listening to professionals.

If we just take one step back, and look at your new main cranky "argument":

If your silly little code, by a grand miracle, proves that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggett%E2%80%93Garg_inequality" is wrong, then you are hoping to run Bell's theorem down the drain as well, right?

(To those who don’t know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_James_Leggett" got the Nobel Prize in Physics 2003)​

There’s only one 'little' problem with this "advanced crackpot approach" – Bell's theorem was formulated in 1964 and the Leggett–Garg inequality is from 1985, published in the paper: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/i9/p857_1"

Are you claiming that John Bell used a time machine in 1964 that made Bell's theorem unconditionally depending on something that were to happen in 1985??

Or are you claiming that George Boole was working on a "Leggett–Garg inequality" already in 1840, and this is the real reason for John Bell’s claimed failure in 1964??

I know you & Crackpot Kracklauer have some really crazy ideas, but this is (hopefully) a little too absurd even to you...

I don’t know why you are doing the bizarre stuff you do, but too the casual reader – this is not science.

To me, this looks like a severe case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect" .

I’m not going to spend more time on you, since there is undoubtedly NO hope.

 

[billschnieder]

1) Bell's inequalities can be derived from triples of dichotomous variables without any physical assumption
2) In Bell-test experiments only pairs of values are ever collected at a time (a dataset of pairs)
3) A dataset of pairs can be made to violate inequalities derived from a dataset of triples for purely mathematical reasons
4) I have provided mathematical proof of (1), (2) is an accepted fact. I have provided proof of (3) via simulation
5) Therefore, the violation of Bell's inequalities derived from triples, by experiments such as Bell-test experiments which only collect pairs, is not surprising, it is expected for purely mathematical reasons, having nothing to do with realism or locality.
6) Therefore, Bell's inequality can never be violated by a dataset of triples, even if the physical assumption of of spooky action at a distance is mandated!

Now if anyone thinks my answer is wrong, be specific, about which of the above claims is false, and why it is false.

Still no response. Lots of insults and grand-standing but no response. I wonder why?

P.S. Advise to any reader – Don’t bother to run the Monty Python code unless you want a good laugh. There are no initialized variables, and 0*0 is always zero, zip, nada, zilch. HAHAHAHAH!

Once again you have misinterpreted everything about everything. The numeric example "0*0" was not referring to your silly little code, but your brain cells.

Liar

And you can add that to the following list, my comments in square brackets:

- I am a layman/amateur. [obviously]
- I have no real education in cosmology or physics (one introduction-course in astronomy). [obviously]
- I read popular-science. [obviously]
- I spend time on the web, searching and reading about cosmology & physics. [apparently not very much ]
- I do not understand the advanced math, required for modern science. [it shows]
- I admire all hardworking people who spend a great part of their lives, struggle to solve the mysteries of nature – to the benefit for all of us (guys drinking beer and watching football). [I doubt it]
- I do accept physics as practiced by the scientific community (of course). [except when you don't like it]
- I am not religious, and I believe that religion should not have any part in science (or politics). [yeah right]
- I think it is important that scientist do all possible to communicate new science to the public. [except the ones you don't like should shut up]
- I like to question subjects (that could be questioned by a layman), if they don't make sense to me. [and obviously also the ones you have no clue about]
- My only hope in the complexity of science: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -- Albert Einstein [at least we agree on something]
- I am curious [are you sure?]
...
- A deterministic law of physics sounds a little 'disturbing'. I like my free will.. [it shows]

-----
Småväxt man är högfärdig.

 

[DrChinese]

Still no response. Lots of insults and grand-standing but no response. I wonder why?

Show us a dataset. How hard can it be? Such as this hypothetical local realistic one showing values at polarization angle settings a, b and c:

Alice:

a b c
+ + -
+ - +
- + -
+ - -
etc

Bob (her entangled twin):

a b c
+ + -
+ - +
- + -
+ - -
etc

According to EPR, there are elements of reality to Alice because we can predict Alice with certainty by observing Bob. We do this by observing Bob's a when we want to predict Alice's a; Bob's b when we want to predict Alice's b; etc.

So far, so good: QM and Local Realism (LR) in sync as to predictions. But here is where it all goes wrong. Per above (and for larger samples too), LR predicts average coincidence rate of no less than 33% when the angles are different (such as a separation of 120 degrees). QM predicts a coincidence rate of 25% for that separation.

Experiments plainly support QM and reject LR, without exception. So the above dataset I presented is flawed because the values a, b and c are not simultaneously well defined independent of observation. EPR felt that was unreasonable, but they did not know about Bell and they did not know about Bell tests.

-------

Bar är broderlös bak.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... So far, so good: QM and Local Realism (LR) in sync as to predictions.

Your explanation on a b c is rock-solid and crystal-clear to everyone who wishes to understand, and I guess that even a gifted 10-yearold could do it, with some help.

I don’t know how old billschnieder is, but undoubtedly he’s fishing for something else. He’s obviously scared to death by anything that looks like Spukhafte Fernwirkung, and he doesn’t care that much about the R in Local Realism.

AFAICT, the example with a b c is excellent to explain the impossibility of objects having pre-existing values (= Einsteinian Realism).

Since billschnieder now has run into the wall with his first attempt to disprove Bell's theorem by Bayesian probability + the Chain rule (claiming that the "Big Problem" is that Bell used a comma instead of a vertical bar in Bell (2)) – he now thinks he has found the "Big Flaw" in triples.

billschnieder for real thinks that Bell's theorem REQUIRES three (3) simultaneous values, and since we always get two (2) entangled values in real EPR-Bell experiments – Bell's theorem can NEVER be proven right by real experiments. billschnieder is therefore supremely convinced that he has made a new groundbreaking scientific discovery.

He "builds" this majestic "scientific discovery" solely on the Leggett–Garg inequality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggett%E2%80%93Garg_inequality"

The simplest form of the Leggett–Garg inequality derives from examining a system that has only two possible states. These states have corresponding measurement values Q=\pm 1. The key here is that we have measurements at two different times, and one or more times between the first and last measurement. The simplest example is where the system is measured at three successive times t₁ < t₂ < t₃.

And the rest of the world knows that Bell's theorem is from 1964 and the Leggett–Garg inequality is from 1985.

... pure madness ... don’t know if to laugh or weep ...


P.S. Your Swedish footnote is cool! "Others" did not have the same luck with Google Translate and I’m laughing hilarious tears.

-----------------------
Почему 100? Если я ошибся, один было бы достаточно.

 

[DrChinese]

Your explanation on a b c is rock-solid and crystal-clear to everyone who wishes to understand, and I guess that even a gifted 10-yearold could do it, with some help.

Thanks, in fact *I* am a gifted 10 year old. In a slightly more used body, however.

One of the things that it is easy to lose sight of - in our discussions about spin/polarization - is that a Bell Inequality can be created for literally dozens of attributes. Anything that can be entangled is a potential source. Of course there are the other primary observables like momentum, energy, frequency, etc. But there are secondary observables as well. There was an experiment showing "entangled entanglement", for example. Particles can be entangled which have never interacted, as we have discussed in other threads.

And in all of these cases, a realistic assumption of some kind leads to a Bell Inequality; that Inequality is tested; the realistic hypothesis is rejected; and the predictions of QM are confirmed.

None of which fits with our "common sense" view of the moon being there when not observed. And yet every variation shows the same result. You have to respect nature for being so consistent.

 

[questionsyes]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

The math says not(?)

It's impossible to prove it did(?)

Should we "just stop worrying and calculate"?

...or has the tree just hit me?

 

[DrChinese]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

The math says not(?)

It's impossible to prove it did(?)

Should we "just stop worrying and calculate"?

...or has the tree just hit me?

Welcome to PhysicsForums, questions,yes!

Impossible to prove it did make a sound, I say. And the tree hit me on the way down too!

 

[skippy1729]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

My favourite answer to this question:

"What is observed, certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. This freedom is then used to avoid paradoxes."

von Weizsäcker, C. H., 1971, in Quantum Theory and Beyond, ed. T. Bastin, (Cambridge University Press, London) page 26.

Skippy

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thanks, in fact *I* am a gifted 10 year old. In a slightly more used body, however.

You are welcome. Why do I feel some entanglement here...?? Especially the body part... The critical difference must be that some suspect I have only one brain cell. But what do I care; I’m only a layman here to learn, not a pseudo professor trying to run over Nobel Laureates.

And in all of these cases, a realistic assumption of some kind leads to a Bell Inequality; that Inequality is tested; the realistic hypothesis is rejected; and the predictions of QM are confirmed.

Excellent explanation again! For a 1-brain-cell 10-yearold like me; could we say that a Bell Inequality is like a "speed limit", if we exceed (violate) this "speed limit" we are caught with something that doesn’t fit our everyday experience.

Like driving a Volkswagen Beetle 400 mph on Autobahn, and then being stopped by the Autobahnpolizei to deliver a "realistic hypothesis" for the car and the speed.

If this is correct, then there is nothing "spooky" about a Bell Inequality – it’s the violation of this inequality that mess up our classical conception about the (microscopic) reality, right?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

Welcome questions,yes

Sometimes it’s hard to hear the wood for all the falling trees... how about a good old tape recorder...

(struck by the whole wood, one brain cell left...)

 

[questionsyes]

... how about a good old tape recorder...

Presumably that would qualify as "hearing" it?

Has acausality been ruled out?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Presumably that would qualify as "hearing" it?

Yeah, I know... but the funny thing is: How does the tree know if the tape recorder is on or off, or if the tape is damaged, etc?? The tree must know all these things before it starts falling...

 

[DougW]

There is no such thing called the "MU theory", unless you just made it up. Are you talking about the Many-worlds interpretation (MWI), or the Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis?

I hope you do know the difference between theory/hypothesis/interpretation?

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

 

[ThomasT]

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

I've been reading (at least trying to) Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality". It might take me months (or even years) to honestly agree or disagree with his contentions. He's a genius of sorts. Adept at seeing connections that most of us don't see. But, I think that there might be a simpler reason for not assuming nonlocality (even though I like the idea of the SE and resultant wavefunctions as approximating the underlying reality) than the MUI or MWI represent. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.

Check out my subsequent postings for some rather more 'down to earth' reasons why violations of BIs don't imply nonlocality (or anything else about nature).

 

[ThomasT]

Show us a dataset.

It isn't clear to me what you mean by this 'dataset' of yours. Models/theories of entanglement (including QM and LR models) predict rates of detection, not datasets. So where does this dataset come from? What are you talking about?

 

[ThomasT]

billschnieder's recent arguments are based on the papers cited below:

Possible Experience: from Boole to Bell
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0767v2.pdf
Published in: EPL, 87 (2009) 60007

Extended Boole-Bell inequalities applicable to quantum theory
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.2546v2.pdf

The second paper, still in the works, on the extended Boole-Bell inequalities, provides a detailed account of why BIs are violated and why their violation doesn't imply nonlocality in nature.

While we love them both, I doubt that DrC understands these arguments, and I know that the wild and wacky DevilsAvocado doesn't. So, erstwhile reader, as you're vacillating between believing that violations of BIs 'prove' nonlocality or not, consider this -- the authors of the above papers are established, well respected, and bona fide professors in their respective fields. Hess is a well known and well respected physicist. On the other hand, the people arguing in favor of nonlocality are DrC, who is a computer programmer of unknown competence, and DevilsAvocado (he isn't even confident enough to reveal his real identity) an admitted physics novice and amateur.

The only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature.

If you have the expertise to follow and render opinions regarding the above-reference papers, then render them. If you don't, then wouldn't it be wise to follow the conclusions of the professionals who wrote those papers?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that this thread now is "gifted" with two (2) intellectual swindlers:

When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)

Science has not proven nonlocality. I'm a physicist who believes the Bell experiments are legit, but these experiments don't prove nonlocality; they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability. So, it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality.

(And it’s of course not RUTA.)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

I know. It’s the theory in "MU theory" that caught my interest. David Deutsch calls it multiverse hypothesis, which is something else:

"Wikipedia - A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."​

This is one of those "little things" that our two intellectual swindlers in this thread would exploit to bamboozle the "casual reader".

 

[ThomasT]

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that this thread now is "gifted" with two (2) intellectual swindlers:

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

Here are some RUTA quotes provided by, yes that's right, the DA itself:

When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)

Science has not proven nonlocality. I'm a physicist who believes the Bell experiments are legit, but these experiments don't prove nonlocality; they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability. So, it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality.

Let's see now, RUTA says that "science has not proven nonlocality", " [Bell] experiments don't prove nonlocality", "it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality", and, guess what, RUTA has co authored a theory in which quantum entanglement is depicted as a nonseparable, local phenomenon.

So, I must thank the DA for supporting my contention regarding RUTA (the ONLY ...the ONLY? ... yes, the ONLY working physicist who has contributed to this thread).

 

[DougW]

I know. It’s the theory in "MU theory" that caught my interest. David Deutsch calls it multiverse hypothesis, which is something else:

"Wikipedia - A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."​

This is one of those "little things" that our two intellectual swindlers in this thread would exploit to bamboozle the "casual reader".

LOL, you're right, I have noticed how some people will beat down discussion with umimportant details like that. The point I was trying to make was simply this:

The movement of the sun, moon and stars could not be truly understood (or predicted by mathemetical formulas) until someone took the leap to consider whether they might not be orbiting around the earth. Likewise, when Galileo dropped his two balls from the top of the tower of Pisa, he was making a move away from a framework of assumptions about the universe that allowed us to come up with new experiments, make new predictions and ultimately 'discover' new laws of physics.

For some reason, many people assume that there are no more leaps of that caliber left to be made, that we understand all there is to understand about the universe. So when a quandry like 'spooky action at a distance' comes up, we want to explain it only within the framework of what we have previously labeled 'the known universe'. And what we are missing is that this may simply not be possible.

It may be that under specific local conditions that C is a fixed velocity, but when viewed from a different framework (other dimensions? warped timespace?) it may be possible to exceed that limit. The most interesting things being done in physics today concern areas where the limit of our understanding is being expanded: Information Theory, Brane Theory, the Study of Complexity, Quantum Computing, etc.

The role of physics in this is to find ways to disprove these theories, discard those that won't stand up to experiment, and then make deeper assumptons (based on logic, not wild flights of fancy like 'spirits' in plants giving them healing properties) and develop new experiments to attempt to disprove these additional assumptions.

As for this forum, it's good to see that there are at least a few people who are courteous enough to treat everyone civilly. It would be pretty sad to think that this forum's reason for existence is so that a bunch of really smart people could remind themselves how much more they know than everyone else...

 

[DougW]

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

Here are some RUTA quotes provided by, yes that's right, the DA itself:


Let's see now, RUTA says that "science has not proven nonlocality", " [Bell] experiments don't prove nonlocality", "it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality", and, guess what, RUTA has co authored a theory in which quantum entanglement is depicted as a nonseparable, local phenomenon.

So, I must thank the DA for supporting my contention regarding RUTA (the ONLY ...the ONLY? ... yes, the ONLY working physicist who has contributed to this thread).

Wow, I hope you had an adequate supply of kleenex handy after that post...

 

[ThomasT]

Wow, I hope you had an adequate supply of kleenex handy after that post...

OK Doug

 

[DevilsAvocado]

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that the two (2) intellectual swindlers follow the same pattern over and over again. When proven wrong in simple English, understandable by a 10-yearold, they turn into personal attacks and name calling, in lack of any real arguments. We have seen this number of times by now.

The funny thing is that they accuse others for being "drama queens" and "liars", etc. What can one do but laugh.

I can’t wait for RUTA to comment on this deliberate corruption of his scientific position in EPR-Bell. It will be pure entertainment.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

 

[DrChinese]

It isn't clear to me what you mean by this 'dataset' of yours. Models/theories of entanglement (including QM and LR models) predict rates of detection, not datasets. So where does this dataset come from? What are you talking about?

Read EPR. According to EPR, there are elements of reality to values which can be predicted with certainty. That would be, per their definition, values for any angles a, b and c I care to chose. If they have those values, what are they? Any local realist should be able to provide an example dataset. I have provided my own, for example, and demonstrated that it leads to outcomes which are inconsistent with observation. LR is inconsistent, QM is not.

Ergo, those EPR elements of reality don't exist.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?

Please reply to my specific questions.

You stated that Kracklauer's "statistics assumed information concerning the detector settings at all sites was available at all sites." Isn't it true that at the conclusion of a run this info is available ... to the global observer, the experimenter? So, I'm suggesting that maybe Kracklauer's objection to your criticism was valid.

As I've asked, if you can point out the specific error in Kracklauer's analysis, then that woud be appreciated.

That the information is available AFTER the fact doesn't bear on a possible CAUSE for the correlations. The point is that the detector setting at site A is NOT available to site B BEFORE the detection event occurs at site B. If this information is available prior to detection, the correlations in the outcomes can be orchestrated to violate Bell's inequality. No one disputes this fact -- you have to keep the outcome at each site dependent ONLY upon information AT THAT SITE to have the conundrum about their correlations.

Thus, there are generally two ways to account for EPR-Bell correlations. 1) The detection events are separable and you have superluminal exchange of information. 2) The detection events are not separable, e.g., the spin of the entangled electrons is not a property of each electron. The first property is often called "locality" and the second property "realism."

Kracklauer's statistics simply assumed detector setting information was available at each site prior to detection outcomes. When I discussed this with him at a conference, he was adamant that the outcome at each site was contingent upon outcomes and settings at other sites so the "proper" statistics had to contain this fact. His whole argument was that we needed to use the "proper" statistics and the mystery would disappear. His "proper" statistics just assume global knowledge of detector settings. But, unless he has a proposal for how this information is available, he has done nothing to resolve the mystery. How is this information available? FTL signals or nonseparability? Or both? What is the mechanism? All he had was a statistical counterpart to the mystery, although it could be published if no one else had pointed this out. But, nothing was "resolved."

Personally, I will focus on the interesting facts concerning EPR-Bell, and maybe someone else can act "swindler cleanup", and chase scams like this one:

On the other hand, the people arguing in favor of nonlocality are DrC, who is a computer programmer of unknown competence, and DevilsAvocado (he isn't even confident enough to reveal his real identity) an admitted physics novice and amateur.

Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?



Personally, I will focus on the interesting facts concerning EPR-Bell, and maybe someone else can act "swindler cleanup", and chase scams like this one:

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked. Don't worry, the text speaks for itself.

 

[ThomasT]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?

I thought we were just having some fun. Sorry if I hurt your feelings DA. Hey, I don't even know what 'vitriol' means.

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that the two (2) intellectual swindlers follow the same pattern over and over again. When proven wrong in simple English, understandable by a 10-yearold, they turn into personal attacks and name calling, in lack of any real arguments. We have seen this number of times by now.

Uh oh. I sense vitriol.

The funny thing is that they accuse others for being "drama queens" and "liars", etc. What can one do but laugh.

Indeed. I'm glad you're such a good sport.

I can’t wait for RUTA to comment on this deliberate corruption of his scientific position in EPR-Bell. It will be pure entertainment.

It's times like this that one lives for. Eh? Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some intellectual swindlin' to do.