Testing whether entanglement is a matter of information or non-local?

[DrChinese]

... Ok, I tried to follow your math and I cant. ...
I am a very open minded, and skeptical, person. I want to know truth, why would I want to know anything other. I have no bias, I have no stake, I am honest to myself and others. ...
According to what I am saying, they would not be in random directions, that's the whole point of my argument. ...

Imafungi,

You are willfully picking and choosing what you accept, what you believe, etc. and it has little to do with science, and learning more. The mutually contradictory nature of your comments show as much. You are obviously telling us and doing very little listening.

First, read EPR (1935). If you read that, you would know - without any math at all - that there is an element of reality associated with anything that can be predicted in advance with certainty (according to a reasonable definition of reality). Entangled particles fit the bill, and no one has really ever claimed otherwise since QM came to the scene. Measure particle A at ANY angle X. You now know entangled partner particle B's attribute at X with 100% certainty - not probabilistic as you say. They too felt that

Next, make EPR's assumption that the result of A's measurement can in any way be based on the nature of the measurement made at B. Otherwise we would live in an observer-dependent reality, something EPR felt was unreasonable.

Lastly, you must conclude that the outcome of all possible measurements on each of a pair of entangled particles must in fact be predetermined. That was the one that Bell discovered could not be correct. The math of the Bell paper can be a bit convoluted, so go to my own page which arrives at the same point in a simpler fashion:

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

If you won't take the time to understand Bell, no one can much assist you here. Our goal is to present you with information for you to study and understand on your own.

And if, after you understand Bell, you still have questions: by all means, start a new thread and we can discuss. But it is really outside of forum rules for you to post your personal arguments here. You would need to present suitable citations first. You should also not be issuing veiled challenges to others.

Please take this as a kindly nudge, and please double check the forum rules if you are unsure on my points. The moderators take this quite seriously, and especially so in this subject area.

 

[bhobba]

Bell's theorem shows that your belief is WRONG.

Indeed it does.

But what I want to know is why he believes it in the first place.

I suspect he hasn't cottoned onto the idea our intuitions formed here in the commonsensical classical world may not apply in the micro world.

Its not that physicists have pulled such ideas out of the hat for some kind of perverse pleasure. They were forced to it for very good reasons.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DrChinese]

...But anyway, am I getting it right, that your main point is, 'why would a theory that includes probabilities and superposition be so good at predicting events of reality if events of reality didnt include probabilities and superpositions?'. Is that the gist?

No, it is not the gist. QM could be wrong. The question is whether local realism could be as accurate as QM. And the answer to that is NO.

Your logic makes little sense, read my post preceding this (61). To be clear: If you continue the discussion without listening to my suggestions, you will be reported immediately.

 

[Imafungi]

Why do you believe that?

Science is about correspondence with experiment, not what you believe.

So exactly what QM experiments lead you to that view? There are many experiments that suggest its in deep trouble, such as the double slit experiment where no one has been able to figure out how to predict what position the particle or photon will be detected at. So, not based on a gut feeling, your belief, philosophical waffle about determinism, yada, yada, yada, exactly why do you believe that?

Thanks
Bill

So a couple of thousands of years ago if scientists measured that the Earth was flat in experiment, would the Earth have been flat, or at least that's what you would be forced to believe? I know that's a bad example, but only because there may not be anything in which would lead you to reason in those times that the Earth is round, besides perhaps using the roundness of the sun to make a posit, but that wouldn't be science I guess.

I have been quite clear with my reasoning in my replies. I am a lover of science and truth, I am merely asking questions.

I believe determinism because I have seen or thought of no possible way it can be explained or shown to be breakable. That is if the universe is natural. The only things I can think of that might break determinism are 'a mind' and maybe a computer random number generator(?), maybe. But would that, and all things, still not be determined and limited by laws, laws which them self are determinations?

I don't know what double slit experiment has to do with believing that; 'that which exists, exists as that which that is'.

I will try to express my logic as to why I stated what I did in the reply you are replying to.

Do you believe 'something' exists? (something at all, as in, there is something besides nothing)

Do you believe that the total quantity of 'something' that exists is always finite? (as in, cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed)

Do you believe that for 'something' to transform into 'something else', it first had to 'be' 'something'?

Than you must believe that, 'that which exists (all the something) is always equal to itself', in that, 'that which exists, is always equal to that which exists'. It is a finite quantity, it transforms/changes, which is what time is.

I don't know, at least not yet, or haven't seen or considered, a realistic or logical, meaning possible, way in which a reality that exists, that is 'true something', can have non local properties.

I suppose a potentially important part of this belief in mine is that there must be a 'smallest possible quanta', theoretically and actually. Though I suppose the possibility of the smallest possible quanta being much much much smaller than the average smallest quanta of our material universe, may be able to be used as the excuse for non locality (is this where all the folded and hidden dimensions come in?). In the sense that the reason for spooky action at a distance is because this relatively large quanta massed material universe we exist in/of exists 'on top of' a much smaller quanta material universe which behaves in ways so foreign from we have been ingrained to be used to, that it is possible for its standard functions to annoy me and Einstein by its seemingly physical impossibility.

So if spooky action at a distance is true, and the universe is real, physical/material/energetic, what is the leading candidate/idea/theory as to the physical mechanism that causes it?

 

[TumblingDice]

The "klink" you're about to hear is the sound of a thread being locked...

 

[bhobba]

I believe determinism because I have seen or thought of no possible way it can be explained or shown to be breakable... I don't know what double slit experiment has to do with believing that; 'that which exists, exists as that which that is'.

Its got to do with objects having a property independent of if its observed to have that property. In the double slit experiment precisely what position does the particle have when not observed? If it has a definite position how does it interfere with itself? There is a way out of this so you can preserve your preconceived view of the world (eg BM), but its far from clear if the shenanigans required for this is a-priori required. The world may simply be like that.

Do you believe 'something' exists? (something at all, as in, there is something besides nothing)

Sure.

Do you believe that the total quantity of 'something' that exists is always finite? (as in, cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed)

No I do not believe that eg its an experimental fact beyond refute photons for example are not conserved.

That said a VERY deep discovery of physics is the connection between symmetries and conservation laws:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html

Also note this was the discovery of mathematics and was so startling it is doubtful without mathematics it would have ever been discovered.

Do you believe that for 'something' to transform into 'something else', it first had to 'be' 'something'?

Well your stated premise - namely its first of all something - makes it a trivial statement.

Than you must believe that, 'that which exists (all the something) is always equal to itself', in that, 'that which exists, is always equal to that which exists'. It is a finite quantity, it transforms/changes, which is what time is.

Since there are things like photons not conserved it's obviously false.

So if spooky action at a distance is true, and the universe is real, physical/material/energetic, what is the leading candidate/idea/theory as to the physical mechanism that causes it?

Does everything have to have a cause? Any theory has some premises. Those premises may be explained by some deeper theory or not. But until such a deeper theory is discovered your guess is as good as mine what is fundamental and what isn't.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

This thread is done...