- #1
- 8,195
- 1,931
[Moderator's note: Thread spun off from previous discussion due to topic/subforum change.]
Respectfully, I am not meaning to disagree with you specifically. I see comments regularly more or less with the same perspective as you have presented above. However, I am going to challenge some of these statements, as they are not be supported by current generally accepted science.
----------------------
1. I agree with this. It is a useful perspective to think in terms of "as if". And you even get the right answer!2. By implication, you diminish evidence of "spooky action at a distance" by saying that evidence only appears "post-facto".
I don't know of any generally accepted scientific principle which changes the results of a scientific experiment based on when all of the results are fully available. And specifically, I challenge the idea that there is any difference in the scientific conclusion based on whether the results must be analyzed "post-facto" or not. Events under scientifically controlled experimental conditions are valid regardless of when the data is collated. The events recorded are the events that occurred regardless of distance and time of collation, and nothing less.
And those events lead to valid scientific conclusions. If anyone can produce a PF suitable reference that says otherwise, I would appreciate it.
I will point out that many experiments require data to be collated post-facto, and there is no less value attributed to those experiments for that. An obvious example is the LIGO experiment, which relies on the distance of the separated laboratories for its analysis. The distant data must be transmitted at light speed to a common location. This is no different than occurs with entanglement experiments (including swapping types) where results must also be transmitted at light speed to be understood. Here is a specific reference to a highly regarded experiment in which there is violation of strict Einsteinian locality, and the results are collated after the fact by signals limited to c:
Violation of Bell's inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions
I hope you can see that dismissing evidence of quantum nonlocality (a/k/a Einstein's "spooky action at a distance") because you cannot transmit signals faster than light is a circular argument. You are assuming that which you seek to prove. (Or more accurately, you are dismissing that with which proves something you may disagree with.)
Bell's Theorem - generally accepted science - requires abandonment of locality and/or realism. When we use the "as if" argument (as you did, and I do as well), we are tacitly abandoning locality. But regardless: the measurement settings for A and B - and those alone - determine the statistical predictions of QM, even when A and B are distant from each other as are changes in the measurement settings. From Bell: we know that somehow or another, there must be some method whereby there is rapport between them. They are not in a Product State and therefore they are not independent regardless of distance.3. I agree with this.4. The generally accepted term for this is "quantum nonlocality" (or sometimes "Bell nonlocality" or even just "nonlocality"), which is itself generally accepted. There are thousands of papers demonstrating quantum nonlocality, this being merely one example (from Zeilinger et al):
Experimental Nonlocality Proof of Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement Swapping
An ARXIV, "Nonlocal/nonlocality" shows up over 5000 times in the title of papers. It shows up over 11,000 times in abstracts. It is generally accepted that quantum nonlocality also encompasses the concept of quantum causality, in other words: that causal order is not an observable factor in these type of experiments.
---------------------
If discussion around this challenge would be better off in a separate thread, please feel free to split it off. [Moderator's note: This is that spin-off thread.] Please note that when discussing this, I am not taking the position of any particular interpretation. Just talking about generally accepted science, not personal opinion. I believe it is manifestly unfair to allow folks to speak as if quantum nonlocality does not exist and should be denied in the Quantum Physics forum. If you dislike the term "spooky action at a distance", fine, I understand that. But "Quantum Nonlocality" is generally accepted and should therefore be promoted here - and not in any way diminished as happens too often.
Respectfully,
-DrC
@DrClaude,DrClaude said:1. But when you analyze the results, they look as if the state of each particle pair was decided from the beginning.
2. One is tempted to think in terms of a "spooky action at a distance," that when photon A reaches the polarizer, it affects the state of photon B. But in actuality, our observation of results is post-facto, after all interactions are finished and we can analyze the results of all detectors jointly.
3. The "weirdness" of QM comes from the fact that while everything looks like it was decided from the beginning (my "or" scenario), we know that it is not the case because we can make measurement choices after the particles have been sent on their way that show that they had to be in a superposition of states and entangled with each other.
4. I have feeling that you simply need to convince yourself that there is no actual "spooky action at a distance."
Respectfully, I am not meaning to disagree with you specifically. I see comments regularly more or less with the same perspective as you have presented above. However, I am going to challenge some of these statements, as they are not be supported by current generally accepted science.
----------------------
1. I agree with this. It is a useful perspective to think in terms of "as if". And you even get the right answer!2. By implication, you diminish evidence of "spooky action at a distance" by saying that evidence only appears "post-facto".
I don't know of any generally accepted scientific principle which changes the results of a scientific experiment based on when all of the results are fully available. And specifically, I challenge the idea that there is any difference in the scientific conclusion based on whether the results must be analyzed "post-facto" or not. Events under scientifically controlled experimental conditions are valid regardless of when the data is collated. The events recorded are the events that occurred regardless of distance and time of collation, and nothing less.
And those events lead to valid scientific conclusions. If anyone can produce a PF suitable reference that says otherwise, I would appreciate it.
I will point out that many experiments require data to be collated post-facto, and there is no less value attributed to those experiments for that. An obvious example is the LIGO experiment, which relies on the distance of the separated laboratories for its analysis. The distant data must be transmitted at light speed to a common location. This is no different than occurs with entanglement experiments (including swapping types) where results must also be transmitted at light speed to be understood. Here is a specific reference to a highly regarded experiment in which there is violation of strict Einsteinian locality, and the results are collated after the fact by signals limited to c:
Violation of Bell's inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions
I hope you can see that dismissing evidence of quantum nonlocality (a/k/a Einstein's "spooky action at a distance") because you cannot transmit signals faster than light is a circular argument. You are assuming that which you seek to prove. (Or more accurately, you are dismissing that with which proves something you may disagree with.)
Bell's Theorem - generally accepted science - requires abandonment of locality and/or realism. When we use the "as if" argument (as you did, and I do as well), we are tacitly abandoning locality. But regardless: the measurement settings for A and B - and those alone - determine the statistical predictions of QM, even when A and B are distant from each other as are changes in the measurement settings. From Bell: we know that somehow or another, there must be some method whereby there is rapport between them. They are not in a Product State and therefore they are not independent regardless of distance.3. I agree with this.4. The generally accepted term for this is "quantum nonlocality" (or sometimes "Bell nonlocality" or even just "nonlocality"), which is itself generally accepted. There are thousands of papers demonstrating quantum nonlocality, this being merely one example (from Zeilinger et al):
Experimental Nonlocality Proof of Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement Swapping
An ARXIV, "Nonlocal/nonlocality" shows up over 5000 times in the title of papers. It shows up over 11,000 times in abstracts. It is generally accepted that quantum nonlocality also encompasses the concept of quantum causality, in other words: that causal order is not an observable factor in these type of experiments.
---------------------
If discussion around this challenge would be better off in a separate thread, please feel free to split it off. [Moderator's note: This is that spin-off thread.] Please note that when discussing this, I am not taking the position of any particular interpretation. Just talking about generally accepted science, not personal opinion. I believe it is manifestly unfair to allow folks to speak as if quantum nonlocality does not exist and should be denied in the Quantum Physics forum. If you dislike the term "spooky action at a distance", fine, I understand that. But "Quantum Nonlocality" is generally accepted and should therefore be promoted here - and not in any way diminished as happens too often.
Respectfully,
-DrC