Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

I don't see that as being a serious problem in practice. You can calibrate the angles in advance so that same-axis measurements always yield opposite electron spins, and follow similar procedures in the case of photon polarizations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, my statement contains the garden variety handwaving typical of layman science enthusiasts who are familiar with the limits of our ability to explain observed physical phenomena in the sciences. And correspondingly you have not yet followed through with your promise to give detail of the experiments that you report on that are employed in making the case for non-locality (unless there is FTL going on). My impression is that the experiments employ set ups and measurements that yield observations that science cannot yet explain. The challenge is to describe the apparatuses, types of sets up, the means of making the pertinent observations, and then explain the mechanisms of the natural laws at work that produce the mathematical outcomes.

My impression was that when you started to review the sources, perhaps the links I suggested, or any of the other sources that describe the experiments in detail, along with the scientific explanations of the physical mechanisms at work, you realized that I was right; there is no conclusive scientific documentation that explains the mechanisms. I have maintained throughout that if we don't understand the mechanisms at work, there is a window for unexpected and "as yet" unknown physics to be a work; I call them hidden variables. You have promised that the final loopholes where hidden variables could exist will be closed. Where do we stand on that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Suppose the measurers are light years apart. How do they calibrate angles so they measure along the same axis? Or how do they communicate the relative orientations of the measuring devices?
Or suppose the two measuring instruments are a few hundred kilometers apart on the earth's surface, do they need to take the earth's curvature into account?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mechanisms at work. Get a clue. There is no mechanism. What the physics does is make a prediction with respect to natural phenomena then conduct an empirical analysis to verify or falsify the prediction. You seem to think that pedagogical interpretations of QM can reveal a deterministic mechanism for quantum phenomena. This is the crank approach. Find some reason to say we need a mechanism, for why it happens, before we can understand the natural phenomena. If that was the case we wouldn't know much about anything.

 

That is an ignorant statement.

This is a quite incomplete statement of what what physics "does".

You are so far off about this that I don't think you have actually read what I have said.

Did you actually read what you just said?

 

How the heck is handwaving supposed to contribute anything to the picture? You have zero details that tie any of your ideas to anything that's actually measured in reality, nothing to concretely model and therefore nothing to debate. Handwaving is what the ancient Greeks used to do when they thought they were smarter than everyone else and decreed that all matter consisted of four elements, and that all planets circled about the Earth on a system of circular gears and cogs.

In the past I've linked to at least one published paper on the subject with details on the experimental setup, error analysis and all other aspects, and I'm willing to do so again if you plan on actually reading it. As I've previously explained, I'm having a great deal of trouble pinning down your position. Before I go to the trouble of presenting and discussing the experimental side of Bell's Theorem, I need to know whether you agree or disagree, that a loophole-free Bell test whose results match the quantum predictions would constitute experimental proof of nonlocality, insofar as no obvious sources of error can be identified in the data.

Once again, from the beginning I've insisted that presently there's no rational reason to insist on mechanisms underlying the quantum reality, and hence nothing to realize. I continue to insist that the existing experimental tests using Bell's Theorem already constitute extraordinary evidence as is, that the deterministic view of the universe is insufficient to explain reality without violating Relativity. I don't recall promising anything about loophole-free tests other than stating that several teams are hoping to begin performing them within the coming year or so, if they're not already in progress. In any case, I showed how quantum mechanics easily nails the correct predictions with only minimal assumptions about the experimental setup, and I've waited patiently for you to comment on the matter and address questions such as those I'm asking you in the paragraph above.

I'm ready to proceed as soon as you tell me your position regarding those Bell test loopholes and whether you have any other fundamental objections to the validity of these experiments. I'm certainly not going to give you a thorough overview of all the technical details and every possible angle of argumentation, only to watch you wave your hands yet again and dismiss it with a paragraph.

 

In the electron case, you'd generate a spin-zero beam of particles and send a member from each pair to each of the detectors, and adjust the angles of one of the detectors until the results at both ends are consistently matching up for same-axis measurements. This would take care of both extreme separations and issues such as Earth's curvature. You could also position a set of observers between the two detectors who carefully make sure everything lines up alone the route, in the same way that tunnels are carefully measured in segments along a route to make sure they're following the correct path, but I think this approach is unnecessarily cumbersome.

 

Really? Physics with no physical mechanism taking place doesn't seem to be a rational, reasonable, or responsible position, but maybe that is just me.

 

Until you can come up with some evidence that an underlying physical mechanism exists for quantum behaviours, it really is "just you". Last I checked, there was no mechanism underlying your proposed cosmic waves either, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you. What I'm showing you is that any possible underlying mechanism must necessarily be nonlocal, without worrying about whether such a mechanism does or doesn't exist.

 

So you say.

I don't focus on "proposed cosmic waves", but I'll give you some ground there; they are waves carrying energy across the medium of space at the local speed of light, to be a little more specific. The speed that wave energy traverses the medium is governed by the wave energy density of the local medium. Waves traversing the space occupied by a wave-particle for example, traverse the particle space extremely slowly relative to waves outside of particles; the lower the wave energy density of the local environment, the faster waves go as they traverse the medium. The maximum speed of wave energy is hypothetically the speed of light in a vacuum, but in my model, a perfect vacuum is non-existent because it is filled with the "medium of space". There was no "original wave" because the universe in my model has always existed, wave energy has always existed, and energy is conserved. I do go into my speculations and hypotheses about the mechanics of wave energy, the mechanics of matter composed of wave energy in quantum increments, the mechanics of gravity and light, but you have had plenty of opportunity to read my threads and my disclaimers, and to become aware of the mechanics that I speculate about. To say I don't have mechanisms underlying the processes is just hand waving on your part based on you not having any idea what my model is about. I acknowledge that my ISU model of the universe is layman level only, for discussion on layman level forums like this, and it is a meaningless "book" to everyone who hasn't been involved as I developed it. But it includes mechanisms operating at the "foundational" level (which I define in my various threads). It gives me a basis to compare other layman ideas with mine, and by doing so, both parties learn more about science as a result.

Not so in my model. "Local" in the ISU is any specified patch of space where the subject action is taking place. It has a size based on the range of action involved, and it has a wave energy density that fluctuates as the action moves through that patch of space. Therefore the relative speed of the action is variable as the energy density fluctuates locally and as the action traverses the specified patch of space.

But this thread is not about my model, and certainly it isn't going to be of any interest to anyone for me to expound on the details of it. Enough said, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your efforts.

 

You have no mechanism explaining what makes these waves wave about and propagate, nor any mechanism explaining why they have to interact the way you claim they do, and yet none of these issues bother you the way it bothers you when told that QM doesn't require any underlying mechanisms either.

So you're saying Relativity is wrong, the speed of light in local reference frames isn't really constant, and this is how you would seek to explain the Bell test results? Or are you agreeing that a deterministic universe requires some form of faster-than-light communication in order to account for the existing results, assuming the loopholes are ultimately ruled out?

 

So you say.

The terminology is important. When you say Relativity, do you mean General Relativity with Inflation? That would be a model of cosmology that does not address the beginning, and predicts a finite expanding universe. My layman level Infinite Spongy Universe model addresses the issue of a beginning, and is based on the hypothesis that there was no beginning, and instead of predicting a finite universe, it predicts that the universe is infinite. Big Bang Theory, which includes GR and Inflation, implies one singular Big Bang, and my model is characterized by multiple big bangs here and there across the landscape of the greater universe, and each big bang has preconditions that include the intersection and overlap of parent big bang waves which are a lot like the one Big Bang of GR. Out of those overlaps, galactic material from the parent big bang arenas form big crunches in the overlap space, which individually collapse/bang into new big bang arenas.

Terminology is important, and I don't refer to my model as deterministic as opposed to non-local. If the "theory specific" use of "deterministic" means that there are invariant natural laws of physics that are the same everywhere, maybe you would call it deterministic. However, the characteristic of my model that is a problem to in regard to non-locality, FTL, and instantaneous action at a distance is that the speed of wave energy varies based on the local wave energy density. Nothing goes faster in any locality than the speed of light, and in any locality where the energy density is equalized over that locality, all wave energy travels at the same speed in that locality.

But me adding detail about my model here seems useless, given our well established differences. If you want to ask me about the details of my model, and I don't think you have any interest in doing that except as an opportunity for you to disparage it, then I will participate with you on my thread, about my model. Our Bell's Theorem discussion is not going anywhere anymore, and we have each stated our positions. But thanks.

 

That's not what deterministic means when I use the term, and I hope that hasn't been your understanding of the term this whole time. A deterministic universe is one in which there is only one possible outcome for any isolated system starting out in some given initial state. Quantum mechanics operates on invariant physical laws which are assumed to remain consistent throughout the universe at all times, yet no knowledgeable person refers to it as deterministic.

Ok, so then it seems like you're agreeing that your model completely forbids the exchange of FTL signals and any non-local correlations that require them.

I haven't disparaged your model, only pointed out that it's not consistent with existing experiments and that it therefore lacks reasonability and responsibility. You can duck out any time you want, but then you can't accuse me of failing to deliver on any of the goods that I've promised you, as you've been wont to do around these forums. All I want to know is whether you agree that it's impossible for a local deterministic model to reproduce the quantum predictions in a loophole-free Bell test, and I can proceed from there.

 

So you say.

Yes.

There are no non-local correlations that require them that can be explained mechanistically. You said that physics is not mechanistic.

You have objected to me saying that my model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with observations and data that can be explained mechanistically. Admit it, this has been about my model and your objection to my disclaimer . And isn't your objection based on your belief that there is FTL, and not on any understanding of my model. In my model, physics is mechanistic, and it is irrational to say it isn't. You have not produced the detail of the apparatuses, from which I will try to pin down the mechanistic explanations for the observations behind the math. You have ducked that, saying there don't need to be any mechanisms.

Pick any set up, whether using polarized light, or streams of individual electrons, or even buckyballs if you like, and name the apparatuses used. Then we can explore how much of the results from the actual experiments are understood given invariant natural laws of physics, which we both agree are in effect everywhere.

 

Sorry, but my theory of gravity is not a maybe, but a published well-defined theory, and it has quite definite properties. First of all, it has a preferred frame.

With this preferred frame, standard de Broglie-Bohm theory can be used in the context of relativistic gravity too. But standard de Broglie-Bohm theory is sufficient to solve all the "measurement problems" and to explain, but its not very hidden "hidden variable", the outcome of Bell experiments.

This is, of course, the point of hidden variables. We want to have a reasonable, meaningful explanation how this can happen.

So you simply have to learn elementary dBB theory. It has an equation, the guiding equation, which defines exactly how the wave function guides the configuration:
\(\dot{q}(t) = \nabla \Im \ln \psi(q(t),t)\). So, we have a complete evolution equation for the wave function (which follows the Schroedinger equation) and the configuration (which follows this guiding equation).

And for the collapse there is also a well-defined formula, which defines the effective wave function of a subsystem:
\(\psi_{eff}(q_{sys},t) = \psi(q_{sys}, q_{env}(t),t)\)
If there is no interaction between the system and the environment, this gives the Schroedinger equation for the effective wavefunction of the subsystem. If there is an interaction, this describes the process of collapse during the measurement process.

 

You've said nothing about real physics. You're a crank and not very appreciative of those who have tried to help you. This time it's CptBork. No real physics. Word salad squared.

 

And to that I say in response, my view of the universe features an eternal sameness that plays out across infinite space and time. The most significant part of the sameness is the perpetual process of Big Bang arena action. As a note about that perspective, my view is not of one unexplained Big Bang that describes a finite universe, observed to be expanding as interpreted by the raw red shift data. Instead, based on the extremely significant raw redshift data, and a mind that can't abide a universe coming "out of nothing" at some remote point in time, my view is of the naturalness of multiple big bangs. Each big bang has preconditions, and those preconditions are previous big bangs, expanding, filling with galactic structure, intersecting and overlapping, causing the galactic material contributed by the "parent" Big Bang arenas to form new big crunches at the center of gravity of the overlaps, and those big crunches collapse/bang into expansion as the extreme expression of local gravity. My accumulated "word salads" describe proposed mechanisms taking place at a foundational level where gravity and expansion are competing forces that play out at all levels of order from the infinitesimal realm of quantum action, to the large scale arena action perpetually playing out on a grand scale.

There as a randomness that takes place in my cosmology, but it's outcome is predetermined by the sameness of the invariant natural laws of the the universe, i.e. new Big Bang arenas form from interactions between past arenas, and random iterations of all of the possible elements and forces present in the local environments of new and expanding Big Bang arenas.

In those two paragraphs, of what a few of the antagonists here like to dismiss as word salad, I utilize the most significant scientific observations of the universe when it comes to the science known to mankind, meaning I reference the theoretical physics that can be derived from the raw redshift data measured against the cosmic microwave background. My view of cosmology is consistent with those observations, and is one layman's speculations and hypotheses, put together from scratch in full view the members, over the many years it has taken to develop it, and offered for discussion. For you say that physics does not need to have underlying mechanisms is as absurd to me as my ISU model must be to you.

 

OK, the arguments and counter arguments are on the table. You say that my model is not reasonable and responsible, which are words right out of the description of my methodology of building a step by step layman view of cosmology. You have described experiments that are interpreted to either require instantaneous action at a distance (FTL), or that indicate that there is no local reality. Since my model doesn't accommodate FTL, and since it hypothesizes that particles have location and momentum at all times (local reality), you conclude that my model cannot be consistent with the experiments you describe, when interpreted under the Copenhagen interpretations of QM. Have I got that right?

In the Infinite Spongy Universe model (ISU), everything is composed of wave energy traversing the medium of space, and the velocity of wave energy, always at the local speed of light and gravity, is governed by the wave energy density of the local medium of space. Since all space has wave energy traversing it in all directions at all times, all space has varying degrees of wave energy density, and thus instantaneous action at a distance is precluded.

In addition, there has been talk of mechanics, and whether there are, or even need to physical mechanisms related to physical events. I say yes, you say no.

I consider that a summation of the thread at this point, and to offer a way forward, I note that my recent posts have discussed the scenario of the ISU cosmology at the macro level, offered for discussion. Two things should be mentioned about the macro vs. the micro levels in my model: 1) the macro level "scenario" is not the same thing as the mechanics, and 2) the mechanics take place at the micro level, where the tiniest waves are continually playing out at the foundational level of order; at every point, there are waves coming and going in all directions in the medium of space, and those waves are continually intersecting, causing new waves that expand spherically out of the overlaps of intersecting waves.

It is that wave action, combined with the wave energy density of the local medium of space where particles form and move relative to each other, that accommodates the mechanistic underpinnings of the invariant laws of nature. When you scale up from the micro level, the largest scale of wave action in my model is "arena" action across the landscape of the greater universe. I have recently described arena action as two or more Big Bang arena waves intersecting, overlapping, and the resulting spherically Big Bang arenas expanding out of the collapse/bang of big crunches; multiple arena actions typify any sufficiently large scale patch of space across the landscape of the greater universe.

From here, a discussion of the mechanisms that I include in my model might be possible, while at the same time, you possibly can be expected to show no interest in any such discussion, since mechanisms aren't necessary in your view.

 

Schmelzer: Thank you for continuing to post about your preferred theory, even in the face of general skepticism; I've heard about pilot wave theory before, but only in the vaguest terms, and it's really interesting to hear about it from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

quantum_wave: I think at the start of your last post, you hit the problem right on the head:

Unfortunately, the rest of your post doesn't really address this concern. Any talk about the big bang(s), or the "scale" of mechanics in your model, is beside the point. As long as nothing FTL is going on and the dynamics of the universe are "predetermined by the sameness of the invariant natural laws of the the universe", there is no way to explain experiments that defy Bell inequalities. Full stop.

 

Let me address that concern. It is a "full stop" for you, and Cptbork, and everyone who accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. However, hitting the "problem right on the head" really goes back to the question of mechanics, and not to your conviction that my model cannot be correct because there is not yet any physical explanation for the results of the experiments that Cptbork has quantified.

Let me ask you if you agree that there need be no mechanisms underpinning physical events, and therefore things happen randomly, without there being any explanation in theoretical physics of either the observation of faster-than-light action, or of how quantum entanglement and superposition of states can physically occur locally? Look here:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/66
Zooming in on entanglement
The link is to an experiment that addresses entanglement, and it centers on physical particles that exist throughout the experiment, at near zero K, with specific spin characteristics, and describes some interesting results that allude to entanglement. I'm still digesting its implications as they might apply to the discussion here, but as science advances there are likely to be more and more answers as to what mechanics are at work in quantum mechanics.