Dalo

From Whitaker's book: "Bohr himself died in 1962. Since then the practically monolithic subservience to his views on quantum interpretation has fragmented somewhat. The leading spirit in the process of re-evaluation has been a physicist from Ireland, John Bell, who was stimulated both by the views of Einstein, and by Bohm's work mentioned already. His work is discussed with that of Bohm in Chapter 7. Many other physicists have joined in the discussion of these ideas, analysing the ingenious difficulties for the Copenhagen interpretation thought up by Einstein, Schrodinger, Bell and others, and putting forward interpretations of their own. A few of these ideas are discussed in Chapter 8. Some of these writers have been very critical of Bohr. Murray Gell-Mann [5], himself a winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, for example, has accused Bohr of 'brain-washing' the physics community into thinking the problems were solved. " p.10

If it is so easy to deny me any expertise in the matter, why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves? How is it scientific to concentrate on who is saying what instead of what he is saying? I consider your attitude as unscientific as you consider mine to be. I am not convinced of your wisdom, and any knowledge without wisdom is foolishness.

I find it quite surprising that you still cling to this interpretation. It has never been proven wrong. The debate is still ongoing.

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view Attacking a view under the pretense that your opponent is not qualified is the weakest argument you can think of. What is demanded are arguments, not a judgment on your opponent's abilities. Only people unsure of their own arguments would stoop so low.

I do not agree. This is a "technicist" or "scientist" (from scientism) view that is a very subtle way of denying opponents any legitimacy unless they agree with the mathematical or interpretational premises. It is a circular argument with absolutely no value at all. Keep your convictions of superiority if you will, I refuse to acknowledge it. And this refusal is not a rejection of science but of a certain toxic and elitist view of science.

All I understood is "your position is far clearer".

Then you are both putting the cart before the horse. In the thread Why I am a determinist, I briefly engaged these issues. In this thread I want to build a case for them. It is evident that I am no fan of Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics. But a philosophical opinion as this is nothing new. The EPR paper heralded it, and there are hundreds of publications that defend it. What could my own reiteration mean in such a context? I think that my contribution would be much more meaningful if I proved such a thing as the claim I have presented here. That is why I refuse to be sidetracked towards a general abstract discussion. That is a very interesting claim. I hope you will flesh it out. I don't understand how this can be a critique. Have I not said the same clearly enough just a few posts ago to you specifically? People who would agree with me and at the same time have the necessary expertise would have a much easier time applying my analysis to other examples.

Disagree you may, but that does not change the fact that I have not confronted in this thread the issues you mention. They are certainly fundamental and my own claim has certainly consequences. But that is not the subject of this thread, even if those issues are strongly related to it.

I think it would be easier if you presented your own opinions. Second guessing mine is not helping any of us.

wrong. I have no such general claims. I am, once again, limiting myself to the very direct question whether the example given by Maudlin of the entanglement of photons is correct. My answer in short is negative.

Glad this point has been taken care of.

One could also say that the example I have presented does not fall under the cases treated by the theorem. Take your pick. I have no desire to attack or defend Bell's theorem because it would mean analyzing it mathematically, which I cannot do. I react to its general meaning and assumptions. Feel free to draw your own conclusions whether my position is justified or not. You seem to think that if a mathematical argumentation is mathematically or logically valid then it has to be true, and that is a very wrong assumption. That is why there is such a thing as pure mathematics. The validity of a mathematical theorem does not say anything about its empirical usefulness or even its general truth. It only shows that correct conclusions have been logically deduced from the initial assumptions, and that the calculations are correct. That does not mean that the assumptions are necessarily true. And that is the whole point. Bell did not show that von Neumann could not calculate or could not think logically. He doubted his (von Neumann's) initial assumptions and presented his own. The matter therefore is a matter which assumptions you start with, and that is not a mathematical decision.

I reject Bell's Theorem for as far as it concerns the example I have analyzed and the claim I have presented. As I have just told you a couple of posts ago, I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's Theorem, but expressing an opinion, a judgment, on its implications. And that is, whether it be an assumption or a conclusion, the idea that both systems are different and in need of hidden variables, be they local or non-local, for their explanation.

It is the assumption that both systems (photon + filter) are different, and that we still get the famous (empirical, therefore undeniable) statistical regularities. I say that they are not different according to the assumptions that: 1) both photons have the same polarization, 2) both filters are identical. If you accept those assumptions, they show according to me that both systems are equal and that it is therefore not surprising that they react in a predictable way, conform the known statistical regularities. That makes the distinction between local and non-local, and the necessity to appeal to hidden variables, both meaningless.

No, I do not think that Bell's Theorem has been proven in this special case. If I did, I would not advance my claim. Is that clear enough for you? And I certainly do not doubt the relationship between Physics and Mathematics. Not believing that Bell's theorem is necessarily valid is not rejecting all mathematics.

I have made it perfectly clear from the start, and if you want I will produce quotes from this thread, that I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem, or that of von Neumann's argumentation. In fact, I emphatically declared that the problem of hidden variables cannot be solved by mathematical means. The fact alone that there are at least two theories, von Neumann's and Bell's, with completely different conclusions, makes my position at least plausible. My claim is that the whole concepts of local and non-local are wrong in the context of the experiment described by Maudlin. I am not ready yet to widen the claim to the whole domain of entanglement situations considered by quantum theory. I lack the expertise to analyze in sufficient details every example. The drawing I presented above does show that it does not really matter which property or which particle is considered. But it is a general argument which I would find very difficult to defend in all cases. So, no, I am not pretending anything special about Bell's Theorem, except that I reject it in this special case, as well as von Neumann's. Whether one or the other can be proven mathematically to be correct in other situations is beyond anything I could claim.

This is the same avoiding strategy I have met everywhere. Using mainstream science is legitimate, as long as it is to show how and why some arguments are not valid. To use it as a shield is unacceptable. Mainstream science does not dispense you from the need to present valid arguments. Just saying "science says" is a simple variation on "Simon says". It is childish and unworthy of a Science Forum. *** It is funny how I am accused from all sides of denying Science while my position concerning entanglement, if certainly not identical to Einstein's, is much closer to his ideas than to Bohr's. It seems that everybody in this forum still clings to the idea that Bohr's interpretation is the only correct one. I wonder then who is denying a great part of the developments of Physics and Quantum theory since Bohm and Bell. My claim is certainly not extraordinary. The denial, which I have certainly made clear, of the concept of entanglement, is absolutely not unscientific. It forms the basis of the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), in which they emphatically reject the idea of entanglement. I am therefore in good company, and not ashamed of it. Let those who throw stones remember that the time where everybody thought that Bohr was right and Einstein wrong is long past. I am in fact defending Einstein's position with different arguments. Who could blame me without showing that my arguments are wrong? Assuming they are wrong from the outset because I reject entanglement would be the epitome of intellectual prejudice.

"The reader should need no expertise in mathematics or previous knowledge of physics to obtain an understanding, not only of the main conceptual factors involved in discussing quantum theory, but also of the disagreements which still exist." Andrew Whitaker: Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum dilemma.", 1996. A highly recommended book.

Here we go again. be well too.

Is that your main objection to my claim? It concerns the philosophy of physics, and therefore also physics.

You are telling me how to think because any deviation from mainstream science is a mistake. I will be the last one to pretend that I cannot be wrong. Mainstream science is not a cult one simply disavows. One needs to have very serious arguments before they can be taken seriously. I understand the need for me to defend those arguments. I even understand the intensity and the emotionality of many reactions. It makes me look more critically at my own arguments. What I find unacceptable is that many people in this forum think that just by repeating what mainstream science says they have proven somebody wrong. That is an unscientific attitude, and also quite understandable among students who really do not need all the doubts while they are blocking for their exams. I expect more from you. You should know that just advancing mainstream theory is in itself not an argument. You systematically, in my threads, refuse to look seriously at what I have to say . Your first and last reaction is: but science says... I find that very frustrating. I would like you to keep your convictions, but also to respect mine and start a real dialogue. You would make more chance of convincing me.

You are repeating yourself. And you are at the same time contradicting yourself. It is obvious from what you have quoted me saying that I did not change anything to the description of the problem since the beginning. Your assistance I accept to help me understand mathematical or physics rules I do not understand. It is not here to tell me how to think.

Mordred I do not know what you are talking about. I have not changed one iota to the description of the problem starting from the first post.

Evolution theory also does not answer my concerns. Am I supposed to explain why? Anyway, I think determinism is more than sufficient. It does not need to be super. Then I do not understand your objections concerning identical initial polarization.

I am quoting the article by Maudlin you have shared with us. 1408.1826 (1).pdf I think you are confusing two things: 1) what happens when two similar photons go through different filters? The results will of course be different. But the correlations between both photons is what it is all about! 2) Before going though their own filters, both photons have the same polarization.