Is quantum weirdness really weird?

[PeterDonis]

That's a new theory than, not standard QT

It doesn't seem like that was the intent. Stevendaryl in post #239 gives a more detailed statement of what I think zonde's underlying question is (and a sketch of an appropriate response).

 

[Zafa Pi]

Interestingly, Bell's Theorem (post #161),
zonde's independence criterion (top of #161) applied to the local set up of #161,
my implication question (#194) when answered yes and applied to the set up of #161
are all logically equivalent. That is each one can prove the other.

Any one of them can be proved via the assumption of realism. With regard to my implication question, if Bob had selected experiment X instead, the reality facing Alice at that time would be the same (Bell separation set up) and thus would have determined that she get the same value, 1. The assumption of that reality is realism (or determinism or hidden variables or CFD). The violation of Bell's Inequality forces the answer to my question to be no. The virtue of my question is the lack of any technical language, and can be asked to any Joe walking down the street.

secur thinks that attempting to guess what 19th century physicists would say is a fool's errand. I recall being asked what Einstein would have said after being made aware of Bell's Theorem and the lab results verifying the violation of the Inequality. Of course, it goes without saying that I could never know for sure, and I would love to bring him back from the dead more than any other, nevertheless I did hazard a guess: "Lord, why have you forsaken me?"
I personally find QM weird, or unintuitive is perhaps a better term, but maybe not as bad as "ZFC, with axiom of choice included" [secur], since that gives us the Tarski-Banach Theorem. I have found this thread edifying and fun.

 

[Zafa Pi]

In GHZ experiment for particular three particle measurements QM predicts that one of the four combinations will be measured and other four combinations won't. But QM does not say which one of the four combinations will be measured, instead it gives equal probabilities for these four combinations. It's still statistics.
It's basically the same type of certainty that you can get with measurement of entangled particles with the same measurement settings.

After gathering sufficient data to justify the individual parts of the hypothesis, it takes only one measurement to refute the conclusion (the GHZ Equality).

 

[Zafa Pi]

So I'm saying that the answer to the question "what result would Bob have obtained if he'd measured X instead AND Alice had also obtained the result 1?" is 1. This is independent of the time ordering of Alice's and Bob's measurements.

This correct , but not my original question.

Without this 'given' all we can say is that Alice's and Bob's "would have" results match (so we can make a counterfactual statement about the 'parity' observable).

I think this parity business is a red herring (at least as viable as a dead horse), because if in my original question I used -1 instead of 2 there would be no parity changes, but it would be the same question.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

[Edit: The thread has run its course and will remain closed.]