Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

You have misrepresented my position, and when I have told you what my position was, you said you couldn't falsify it, meaning you couldn't falsify the statement that QM is incomplete.

I have long been aware of the various experiments to show what you have presented. I can't falsity them and have never said I could.

If you would like, I could cut and paste our discussion from my thread which has both sides.

Here is an interesting link, and it discusses one of the things associated with your version of QM that is of interest in the popular media, teleportation. It involves the ability to create particles in the same state as the individual particles in an object (or person) using methods similar to what were used in the experiments you have explained.

What is your take on the possibility of teleportation some day, and is the entanglement that they describe the same concept as what comes into play in the experiments you described? Is entanglement fact or theory, and does entanglement require superposition?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I said I couldn't falsify that QM needed modification, nothing more. Not only do you claim QM requires modification, but you postulate that it's possible for a local hidden variable theory underlying it to explain reality, and the proof I just gave shows that this viewpoint makes a prediction which clearly disagrees with experiment. I haven't misrepresented anything, it's now up to you to show how a local hidden variable theory could escape the prediction I just made in my previous post. I've proven that any local hidden variable theory, whether postulated now or in a million years, wrongly requires that we detect polarization correlations in the Bell test experiment at least 33% of the time, so I leave it to you to show me how or where the proof doesn't apply.

I don't think quantum teleportation will ever be of practical use in a Star Trek sense, because it still requires particles to be reassembled one by one, and accompanying information must be transmitted by a conventional signal no faster than light before the receiver can obtain the necessary info. Quantum teleportation is useful for reliably transmitting the spin or polarization state of one particle onto another one located some distance away in cases where it's not feasible to reliably transport the particle directly, and it can transmit states accurately even when they haven't been directly measured in advance. A potential application could be its usefulness in quantum computing.

Entanglement is a fact, it requires a superposition of states (as do many other quantum behaviours), and the delayed choice quantum eraser and Bell's Theorem tests constitute evidence for this beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'll say anything, won't you. That is why I say there is bad air between us. You are playing out your vendetta, and enjoying your make believe incrimination of things that you derive from what I say.

And entanglement is a theory, and I thought every scientific professional knew the difference between theory and fact, but I suspected you didn't so that is why I asked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you going to debate the actual technical points, or are you just going to continue making factless blanket statements?

 

What are you asking specifically? And can you show where entanglement has risen from theory to fact? I think you are the one who doesn't understand how science works. Prove me wrong.

 

In a Bell test experiment, if there's no communication between the particles in the time interval between the axes selections and polarization measurements, all local hidden variable theories predict that at minimum 33% of the time there must be a correlation in polarization measurements for both particles. Do you disagree?

 

Is that what you are asking specifically? Or is that your answer to how you would show that entanglement has risen from theory to fact. That question of part of my response, in case you are thinking we can move on without you answering my questions.

I also said that I think you are the one that doesn't understand how science works. I asked you to prove me wrong, and that is part of my response, in case you though it was just off topic banter. You need to answer to the question, and prove that you know how science works, because if you think theory and fact a the same thing, you don't know how science works, proving my point.

 

I'm specifically asking if you disagree with my math proof which shows that all local hidden variable theories predict at least 33% correlation. If you don't disagree with my deduction, then I can show how it proves that local hidden variable theories cannot possibly account for certain experimental results, because they always predict something different from what's actually measured, whereas quantum mechanics makes the correct prediction.

 

Is that also your answer to how you would show that entanglement has risen from theory to fact. That question of part of my response. We can't move on without you answering my questions, like you earlier said you would.

I also said that I think you are the one that doesn't understand how science works. I asked you to prove me wrong, and that is part of my response, in case you though it was just off topic banter. You need to answer to the question about theory vs. fact, and you need prove that you know how science works, because if you think theory and fact a the same thing, you don't know how science works, proving my point.

 

Yes, by showing that all local hidden variable theories necessarily make a substantially inaccurate prediction for a certain well-established experimental result, I can establish that the only possible alternative is a non-local theory, and thus reality is necessarily non-local, even if quantum mechanics only predicts the result accurately by complete fluke.

 

Is that also your answer to how you would show that entanglement has risen from theory to fact. That question is part of my response. We can't move on without you proving that what I think is an ignorant position can be held by a science professional.

On that basis, I think you are the one that doesn't understand how science works. I asked you to prove me wrong. By being unable to prove that entanglement theory is fact, which I am almost certain that you can't, then you have proven that you don't know how science works by maintaining that it is fact.

I am also addressing your claims. I am showing that you derive your own positions from my position that quantum mechanics may not be complete, and then claiming that, you are using that straw man in your presentation. Quote again where I made the claims you attribute to me, and include a link, not a cut and paste.

 

To show this, you would need to observe correlations between measurements; you would have to show that the "theory of entanglement" explains observation/measurement.

Well, guess what?

 

quantum_wave, here's what you speculate about local hidden variables:

Link to quote: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141543-Where-are-the-discussions-about-current-problematic-issues-in-science/page10&p=3194450#post3194450

I have demonstrated that these postulates alone, if correct, are sufficient to require that we detect correlations at least 33% of the time in Bell test experiments, whereas in reality the experimentally measured correlation rate (and quantum prediction) is 25%. I have therefore thoroughly invalidated your claims that your speculation is not in contradiction with existing experiments and data. Can you cite anything in my demonstration that doesn't match with the ideas about hidden variables described in your quote?

 

Are you agreeing with CptBork that Entanglement theory is fact?

 

I think we have established that hidden variable theories that can be tested using QM Theory and postulates are falsified by the experiments, given the consensus interpretations. I told you back on Cav577's thread that only interpretations that could be verified or falsified using QM, as it stands, were tested. Do you deny I said that? We can pick up on that in a bit.

The post you linked to mentions that I believe QM is incomplete, and I speculate about a level of order below what we can observe. We can pick up from there when you answer my questions which you have avoided three times now. Do I need to repeat it; can you prove that the theory of entanglement is fact, not withstanding anyone else who agrees with you. It is important to have you answer that, because it will require you to make an admission that will come into play as my response to your claims unfolds.

 

That's a load of bullcrap. All local hidden variable interpretations are kaput, the proof is staring you right in the eyes. Even if we didn't know anything about QM, the proof I gave and the associated experiments demonstrate that local hidden variable theories are a permanent no-go unless the experimenters all independently screwed up in the same way.

Can you stop trolling and tell me how my math proof doesn't apply to all local hidden variable theories? I've just demonstrated why any theory ignoring entanglement contradicts experiment, unless I made a mistake somewhere (along with everyone else who's ever studied the theorem).

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.

A theory explains facts, that's really all there is to quantum mechanics, apart from all the math. The facts are observables or measurements, and the theory explains them.
Whether or not that makes the theory into a "fact" doesn't seem to have a lot to do with it.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you before. I agree with you, but in the context of theory or fact, observables are evidence to support theory, and have nothing to do with theory being fact, as you say.

 

Mod Hat
quantum_wave, kindly reply, directly, to CptBork's mathematical proof; if you cannot, then perhaps your statement that it is somehow not encompassing some local variable theories is unfounded, and should be retracted.

 

Is post #55 sufficient, or did you see earlier that I said in this thread that I see noting wrong with the math? I can find the exact post # if that is necessary.

I ask that you let this discussion play out. The whole topic of QM being incomplete is not new, and I'm here addressing his claims and pointing out my views of what he says. He agreed to answer my questions and his answers to them are part of my defense.