Leaderboard

From a Dutch newspaper:

I feel like you're running around in circles. Altogether the response has been something like 1) There's no reason to either accept or 2) refute your claims because you're not making any testable predictions at all, and 3) you'd need some equations or quantification of effects that make a useful prediction and 4) it would need observational evidence that fits it for it to be treated seriously or accepted, and maybe 5) other stuff I'm forgetting. You're jumping back and forth attacking individual points without considering them all together. It's like it's a puzzle with many missing pieces and you're asking "why can't we ignore this one piece and work on the rest of the puzzle?" and others are asking to see one piece, any piece, show something, and each time they do, that's the piece you want to ignore next. This idea is probably perfectly acceptable except that it's missing all the pieces. Missing pieces doesn't mean it's wrong, just that there's nothing there that can be evaluated to see if it's right.

Nothing I've discussed requires you to try and be in a photon's frame of reference.

This is not fair. You should have included the next paragraph, where Zeilinger gives his own viewpoint. It fits pretty well to @joigus post. Pity enough I only have the the original German version, and translating from one foreign language to another one is a bit difficult. But in my summary: he carefully proposes that letting go realism is the better solution, and refers to the Kochen-Specker theorem, which leads to a similar solution, even without entanglement. Maybe you could cite this paragraph here too? Until now I could not find the text somewhere on the internet. So now, I can add Zeilinger to my list, but only half-half, because he does not express himself as strong as the others on the list. But his tendency is clear.

(Zeilinger) This is correct, but because of the "realism" bit of it, not because of the "local." The Schrödinger equation is 100% local. (Zeilinger again, with my boldface.) This is not correct. I think I've proved it. People who don't (or didn't) think quantum mechanics forces you to give up on locality: Feynman, Gell-Mann, Coleman, Susskind, Hossenfelder... It's a long list. It's perhaps interesting to point out that most of them are (or were) field theorists. I could add more. Do you want me to? Yeah. It seems eerie, because that's not what happens. You also quote my quote. I will quote your quote of my quote (with your underline) now. Pay attention, please, because this is somewhat subtle: This is from Wikipedia. It seems to assume "a quantum state is being transferred." Now, here's an interesting question that I would like you to answer: A pure quantum state cannot be measured. It's not an observable of the theory. In particular, its global phase cannot be measured, and gauge invariance tells us that infinitely-many local prescriptions of it cannot be measured either. How can anybody tell they have teleported something that cannot be measured, and according to many people, it could represent a human idea? If you happen to know Zeilinger, you can pass that question to him, if you wish. Please, do. This cannot be addressed by scavenging for quotes in pop-sci books, declaring yourself to be the proud owner of a T-shirt, or any of the like. You keep repeating this and proving that you don't understand the first thing about QM. There is no such thing as "the quantum identity." Identical particles are fundamentally indistinguishable. This doesn't mean they're perfect lookalikes. It's deeper. It means they're rather more like instantiations of one thing. Or they are multi-represented. Find your own language to say it, if you will. But please don't misunderstand and misrepresent QM any longer. Good! We're getting somewhere. At least you admit that now. Unfortunately, your sentence ends badly: Well. It seems you're implying that there are two channels; one classical, and one quantum. It's the classical one that's under the strictures of sub-luminal propagation. But the quantum is not. Again: How do you know, if a pure quantum state cannot be measured? All those quantum changes can be measured on the mixed quantum state, which implies a considerable fewer degrees of freedom than the pure quantum state, and a lot more measurements. As a matter of fact, infinitely many experiments. How do you know it's FTL if you need infinitely-many measurements to measure it? Oh, I'm sorry. It does. It has everything to do with it. This is the generally accepted protocol for quantum teleportation (with my emphasis in boldface): Mmmm. "both qubits at location A are then discarded." Don't look now, but that's the projection postulate in disguise. Because measurements are involved, there is an extraction of classical data from a quantum state, in order to package this output in the whole signal. This measurement always implies the choice of a basis. In the case of spin, you must decide which polarisation direction you're going to use for the signal. Is it x, is it y, or is it 45º in between? Or is it any other from the infinitely-many possibilities? Once you do that, if you express your density matrix in the corresponding representation you've chosen for the qubit, you will see, very transparently I might add, that it now corresponds to a mixed state. Nothing has travelled anywhere. You've dropped infinitely many components that were initially packaged in the Bell state. You've performed an einselection (one selection.) Zurek's work is about measurement. And so-called quantum teleportation is a particular example. Epilogue: You should be very careful when/if trying to extract hard conclusions by the very iffy method of scavenging for quotes by famous physicists. Some of them prefer to stick to the old-school Copenhagen prescription of the projection postulate which, as I told you, is good for all practical purposes, but incompatible with the Schrödinger equation and formally non-local.* Zeilinger seems to be one of them. People working in field theory, cosmology, etc., of course, know it is hopeless. It works in a quantum-information laboratory at extremely low temperatures, but you cannot make sense of it anywhere else, particularly in cosmology. If you want to go there, you need Zurek's analysis: It works in the laboratory and also for dissipative systems. Even though it's not completely free of problems. Representing the pointer states --in a way that's general enough-- being the real conundrum. Oh, I've just remembered another (Nobel Prize) who disagrees with Zeilinger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_'t_Hooft#Fundamental_aspects_of_quantum_mechanics Cheers. *Not only non-local. It's non-unitary, and non-linear. Why? I would agree that behind it there's no argument at all, but I find it very interesting to hear your reasons, when you have the time.

Freeze it until it's not "rubbery" then machine it quickly.

Hello You focused on the wrong thing. remove religion and focus on other information please

You can get rid of prejudices