Proof that Bell's Inequalities are Equal

[TakenItSeriously]

Bell's Inequalities: Proof of invalid assumptions v1.0.5

 

Objective

I intend to show how Bell's Inequalities are based on a number of false premises which resulted in an incorrect the derrivation of expected results which was the basis for the conclusion.

 

It is not intended to prove anything about local realism, superposition states, or spooky action at a distance. In fact, I believe this solution logically shows that spooky information is still required.

 

While I have no problem with accepting the concept of superposition states, and believe that Bell's conclusion is probably more or less correct, I think the derrivation of expected results in Bells Theorem is not completely accurate. I believe that getting the details right are just as important as getting the conclusion right as the details are going to be accepted as being true along with the conclusion which may block other theories from achieving their goals when inaccurate details are believed to be true.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Setup

I will use examples of electron/positron entangled pairs with their quantum spin states measured at three angles 0⁰, 60⁰, & 90⁰ in a single plane, as defined by John Stewart Bell's Theorem.

 

Assume measurements of "spin up" (u) or "spin down" (d) are made by using a Stern Gerlach device.

 

I intend to show that it is the overlapping of the measurements and the symmetry of their setup that drives the distribution of the measurement combinations and not the randomness of the quantum spin states.

 

 

Problem 1:

There are typically 8 combinations of three qubit states as defined by quantum spin as either up or down. Since Bell's proof is based on presuming that opposite spin states exist at the point of entanglement and conclusions are based on the inconsistency of the expected results with test results then it would be appropriate to assign the spin combinations as particle pairs with opposite spin states rather than considering only the 8 combinations with no considerations for the fact that the particles are entangled.

 

1) (uuu ddd)

2) (uud ddu)

3) (udu dud)

4) (udd duu)

5) (duu udd)

6) (dud udu)

7) (ddu uud)

8) (ddd uuu)

 

Please refer to post #7 to understand the signifigance of why I feel it's important to display the information as pairs instead of independant qubit combinations.

 

Problem 2:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, all possible particle states exist simultaniously in what is called a superposition state. However, this does not mean that those superposition states must include impossible states or that their distribution must be evenly distributed.

 

 

One thing that should strike you as odd are the spin combos 3 & 6:

(udu dud) (combo 3)

(dud udu) (combo 6)

 

Detector D has no region that is not also covered by detectors Y or X. Therefore if detector Y and detector X are the same, then detector D should not ever be different. It's simply not a possible physical state of existance the way that the measurement angles were set up.

 

Problem 3:

This brings me to the third problem which is that the distribution of the 8 combinations are an even distribution is not a valid assumption.

 

 

 

The source of confusion is based on the premise that an electron's spin may be pointing in any radom direction therefore all posible orientations of the electro's spin are presumed to be equally true.

 

It would seem intuitive to expect that the combinations of spin from three different measurements would also be randomly distributed. However, that would not be a valid assumption.

 

When 3 detectors are overlapping and not arranged in a symmetrical fasion, then their combinations of spin should become biased.

 

The easiest way to see this is true is by considering extreme cases. Assume that their are three measurements made in a single plane at the angles of 0⁰, 2⁰, and 3⁰. Then it should be abundantly clear that the vast majority of measurements for all three measurements should have the same results such that nearly all measurements were either (uuu ddd) or (ddd uuu) with any other results being an exceptional case.

 

On the other hand, if all 3 detectors were set up in a symmetrical fashion and not overlapping, then one could expect to see a more even distribution of results. The fact that the measurements are over lapping mean that certain spin combinations may not be possible. The fact that they are not arranged symmetrically, means the distribution is likely biased.

 

While I am making such assumptions based on a more classical approach recall, that is the kind of presumption that is under test. Whether the spin was always their before any measurements were made.

 

BTW, while I don't know for sure, I assume that since the entanglement must adhere to the Laws of conservation of angular momentum, I assume that even Quantum Mechanics must presume that the spin states were always the opposite between the entangled pairs if not their actual orientation.

 

In order to test wether the assumption of an even distribution of all 8 quantum spin combinations is true or a biased distribution is true, we need to break down the angles of spin to their lowest common denominator of 30⁰ increments pointing in 12 different directions of quantum spin angles in a clock like distribution. Therefore each hour on the clock would represent an electron's quantum spin direction equally.

 

I could then distinguish each clock position as a probability of up/down for all three measurements which should reveal any bias.

 

 

Detector Y

Range of up spin angles:

09:00-02:59:59

Range of down spin angles:

03:00-08:59:59

 

Detector D

Range of up spin angles:

11:00-04:59:59

Range of down spin angles:

05:00-10:59:59

 

Detector X

Range of up spin angles:

12:00-05:59:59

Range of down spin angles:

06:00-11:59:59

 

By compiling a list of all probable spin results at each angle, then those results could be used to indicate any bias of spin combo distribution. For instance just based on their proximity of angle to those of the devices before even calculating any probabilities we would see the following distribution as a first order approximation.

 

_1:00__2:00__3:00__4:00__5:00__6:00__7:00__ 8:00__9:00_10:00_11:00__12:00

1__u__|__u__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__u__|__u__|__u__|__u__

2__u__|__u__|__u__|__u__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__u__|__u__

3__u__|__u__|__u__|__u__|__u__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__d__|__u__

_ uuu_|_uuu_|_duu_ |_duu_|_ddu_|_ddd_|_ddd_|_ddd_|_udd_|_udd_|_uud_|_ uuu

 

Now, simply adding the number of occurrences that satisfy each of the three measurement combos reveals the bias:

1) (uuu ddd) = 6/12

2) (uud ddu) = 2/12

3) (udu dud) = 0/12

4) (udd duu) = 4/12

5) (duu udd) = 4/12

6) (dud udu) = 0/12

7) (ddu uud) = 2/12

8) (ddd uuu) = 6/12

 

The sum of the coefficients adds up to 2 because two particles are involved. Since the results were symmetrical due to entanglement, we can just divide the results by two to show their probability approaximations. After rearranging the order we can see that a distribution curve is revealed:

1) (udu dud) 0/12

2) (uud ddu) 1/12

3) (udd duu) 2/12

4) (uuu ddd) 3/12

5) (ddd uuu) 3/12

6) (duu udd) 2/12

7) (ddu uud) 1/12

8) (dud udu) 0/12

 

Note:

What this distribution means is that for every electron with spin combo 2 or 7 their exists twice as many electrons with combo 3 or 6 and 3x as many exectrons with spin combo 4 or 5.

 

Their are no instances of combos 1 or 8 as I already meantioned should not exist.

 

Also notice the bias that combos 3 & 6 have over combos 2 & 3. This makes sense since detector D is closer to detector X than Y.

 

In order to get the expected results, we need ot keep in mind that their is more to the experiment than simply looking at the results from Bob's perspective of taking 3 random measurements. Remember the accounting of the results are relative because they counted the ratio of the two measurements being either the same or different.

 

It's a major distinction because we now need to take into account the obfuscated entanglement effects very carefully which includes not trusting our intuition in situations like this, since intuition is based upon real life experience only. Fortunately I've had experience with solving a similar problem in poker a few years back which actually revealed a quantum like entanglement analog when finding a method for calculating the information lost in the muck of a poker hand. It involved a process of assigning ranges to every action and removing those ranges from the deck which I called "Range Removal". I kept running into a causality issue that kept forcing me into paradoxical like results. It took me a while to finally realize it was an entanglement issue dealing with the concept of using ranges to their fullest extent. Note that this is not a real effect in that ranges are only an imaginary concept in poker, all though to a pro, ranges are more real than the actual hand, at least in most online venues. Once I finally realized that ranges had both a real and an imaginary component, I was able to solve the problem.

 

In this case we must treat the problem as an equity calculation with 1/3 of the results being different when measurements allign and the 2/3 results when they don't allign, while considering exactly how the entangled information will impact our relative results which is a tricky concept because it's not within our normal experiences. Therefore it's a point where you cannot exactly trust your intuition or experience unless it's related to entanglement.

 

When Alice and Bob have made measurements of the same angle, then it's not important that we know which measurements were in allignmnet, it's only important to realize they occur 1/3 of the time and we need to imagine the problem with the information we would have later on after comparing notes.

 

As long as we treat the problem in a comprehensive, consistent and general way then it should be fine.

 

For the 1/3 case when measurements allign, it's easy since the results would be monotone with all measurements that are going to be 100% opposite. Since I've broken the problem down into 12 increments we end up with a simple result:

 

(1/3)(24/12) = 8/12

 

note that we have 24 instead of 12 instances since we need to count for results where alice can have either up or down.

 

Note that I kept the 12 in the denominator because I know it will show up again.

 

In the case of when measurements don't allign, thier is still information we need to consider. For one it's no longer strictly a 3 qubit problem, because when measurements don't allign we know that their is a result that is giving us information eliminating a variable. Therefore we must assume that Alice had measured a result and on a specific detector. To make sure we get them all, we need to check it against all of her possible results. Note that the assumption of looking at two spin states covering the rest does not hold up under these conditions. Don't worry its only 3 measurements over 4 states.

 

This is where the pairing of the particles comes in handy:

2) (uud ddu) 1/12

3) (udd duu) 2/12

6) (duu udd) 2/12

7) (ddu uud) 1/12

 

where:

The first particle represents Alice's results and the second particle is Bob's. The measurements are shown in this order: (YDX YDX)

 

We need to check all of Alices possible results to find the average result.

Alice: spin up in Detector A

2) (uud ddu) 1/12: "du" o s

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "uu" s s

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "uu" s s

same: 5

opposite: 1

 

Alice: spin up in Detector B

2) (uud ddu) 1/12: "du" o s

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "ud" s o

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "ud" s o

same: 3

opposite: 3

 

Alice: spin up in Detector C

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "ud" s o

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "ud" s o

7) (ddu uud) 1/12: "uu" s s

same: 4

opposite: 2

 

Alice: spin down in Detector A

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "dd" s s

6) (duu udd) 2/12: "dd" s s

7) (ddu uud) 1/12: "ud" o s

same: 5

opposite: 1

 

Alice: spin down in Detector B

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "du" s o

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "du" s o

7) (ddu uud) 1/12: "ud" o s

same: 3

opposite: 3

 

Alice: spin down in Detector C

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "du" s o

3) (udd duu) 2/12: "du" s o

2) (uud ddu) 1/12: "dd" s s

same: 4

opposite: 2

 

same: 24/12

opposite: 12/12

 

combining the 1/3 and 2/3 results:

same = (2/3)*(24/12) = 16/12

opposite = (2/3)*(12/12) = 8/12

opposite = (1/3)*(24/12) = 8/12

 

Expected Results:

opposite = 16/12

same = 16/12

Edited March 2, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to Speculations.

 

Although this looks to be a fine post with a lot of effort and thought put into its composition it is challenging a widely accepted piece of mainstream physics/maths and thus we cannot allow it to stay in the main fora (students might come across it and accept its arguments not knowing that they are speculative.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

To all other members - we already have large numbers of threads challenging the veracity of both the Bell's Inequalities and the Experiments (such as the Aspect) which utilised Bell's ideas; DO NOT HIJACK THIS THREAD WITH YOUR OWN SPECULATIONS ON THIS TOPIC. This thread is for TakenItSeriously to explain, defend, and expand his ideas; and for members to challenge, counter, and possibly disprove the OP's contention

[swansont]

You start out by saying you have entangled pairs, and then you mention having 3 qubits. It's not clear to me what your setup is, or what measurements you are doing.

[imatfaal]

Not sure what the problem is in Problem is in Problem 1 nor why you have used three qubits (I nowsee SwansonT has already mentioned this) - both EPR and Bell call for multiple measurements of spin 1/2 particles entangled in spin singlet state 1/sqrt2 (|up>x|down> - |down>x|up>). The measurement of these in the same axes will indeed always be perfectly anticorrelated.

 

Problem 2 - you seem to be implying that the measurement of particle 1 of qubit A has influence on the measurement of particle 1 of qubit B. I fail to see why this would or should be the case. the way you have presented it seems to be a set of three qubits (QA QB QV - each made of two entangled particles 1 and 2) - but the assertion that measurement of QA1 on D axis cannot be opposite to measurement of QB1 on X or y is not true. The anticorrelation etc exists (or doesn't depending on outcome) between QA1 and QA2 - why would there be a link between QA1 and QB1?

 

For measurement of QA1 and QA2 the probability of anticorrelation would be (1+cos(theta))/2 where theta is the angle between detector x and detector d, or similarly between detector y and detector d

[TakenItSeriously]

You start out by saying you have entangled pairs, and then you mention having 3 qubits. It's not clear to me what your setup is, or what measurements you are doing.

I'm not certain what you're asking. The three qubits I refer to are probably the three options of measurement of quantum spin angle for either the electron or positron entangled particles that are measured by Alice or Bob.

 

However, I didn't think my objectives and setup were clearly defined and tried to clean those up a bit, if that was what you were asking.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited March 2, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

I'm not certain what you're asking. The three qubits I refer to are probably the three options of measurement of quantum spin angle for either the electron or positron entangled particles that are measured by Alice or Bob.

 

However, I didn't think my objectives and setup were clearly defined and tried to clean those up a bit, if that was what you were asking.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

Those are not three different qubits, they are three separate measurements. Further, it looks like you are suggesting they be made simultaneously. How does that happen?

 

I think that usually you discuss different measurements on identically-prepared entangled states, with Alice and Bob's detectors at chosen angles.

[TakenItSeriously]

Not sure what the problem is in Problem is in Problem 1 nor why you have used three qubits (I nowsee SwansonT has already mentioned this) - ...

Ahh, now I think I understand Swansont's question.

 

Problem 1 was in regards to a minor issue that I had noticed repeated in most videos or articles that either attempted to explain or tried to prove Bells consclusions. They all seemed content to only show the eight bit combinations by themselves as opposed to showing the bit combinations in relation to their entangled particles which I felt was the far more significant information to the problem.

 

It seems like a minor point but one that carries deeper consequences in how a problem of this type is treated later on.

 

The most common mistake seems to be that people approach the solution from Bob's point of view alone, without fully regarding the effects that entanglement has on the problem.

 

It's effect is particularly important due to how the problem was stated asking whether the results are the "same or different" between observers which is a very subtle detail but one that drastically changes toe scope of the problem to making it necessary to utilize even the obfuscated information tat comes from entanglement including any perceived information that is revealed after Alice and Bob compare notes.

 

I therefore made it a point to show that the 8 posible qubit combinations are not what is particularly important as if it were a typical quantum computer problem but it is their relationship as a single system of entangled pairs that is the detail that is important. by showing the qubit combinations always in their entangled pair state serves as a constant reminder that makes it less likely to overlook.

 

It this case, their arguements all seem to be made as only looking at the problem from a three x three matrix and not from the perspective of causality that Alices measurement has an effect on Bob's measureent so that the matrix must be divided into a 1/3, 2/3 equity calculation instead.

 

Sorry, "equity calculation" is a poker reference that deals with the proper methods for hand range analysis which is a very strong analogy for Quantum Mechanics. I just didn't know the proper QM term to use in it's place.

 

Equity calculations deal with how our choices are broken down properly for probability calculations that is the key for finding a proper conclusion. That was the point I was making as to why I thought replacing the 3x3 matrix with two smaller problems of alligned and nonalligned measurements.

 

Sice this reply was so long, I will address the rest of your question on problem 1 as well as the discussion about problem 2 seperately.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

Ahh, now I think I understand Swansont's question.

 

Problem 1 was in regards to a minor issue that I had noticed repeated in most videos or articles that either attempted to explain or tried to prove Bells consclusions. They all seemed content to only show the eight bit combinations by themselves as opposed to showing the bit combinations in relation to their entangled particles which I felt was the far more significant information to the problem.

That's all you need.

 

It seems like a minor point but one that carries deeper consequences in how a problem of this type is treated later on.

 

The most common mistake seems to be that people approach the solution from Bob's point of view alone, without fully regarding the effects that entanglement has on the problem.

The point of entanglement is that Alice's point of view adds nothing to the problem if you make the measurements in the same basis.

 

It's effect is particularly important due to how the problem was stated asking whether the results are the "same or different" between observers which is a very subtle detail but one that drastically changes toe scope of the problem to making it necessary to utilize even the obfuscated information tat comes from entanglement including any perceived information that is revealed after Alice and Bob compare notes.

 

I therefore made it a point to show that the 8 posible qubit combinations are not what is particularly important as if it were a typical quantum computer problem but it is their relationship as a single system of entangled pairs that is the detail that is important. by showing the qubit combinations always in their entangled pair state serves as a constant reminder that makes it less likely to overlook.

 

It this case, their arguements all seem to be made as only looking at the problem from a three x three matrix and not from the perspective of causality that Alices measurement has an effect on Bob's measureent so that the matrix must be divided into a 1/3, 2/3 equity calculation instead.

If Bob makes the measurement first, Alice's measurement has no effect on the answer. Entanglement means there will be a certain correlation of the answers.

 

[imatfaal]

No - I think you have misunderstood most explanations; normally the figures shown are very much the combination of particle and entangled particle.

If we call the measurement Q with superscript denotes which of particle/entangled is measured and subscript denoting which axis then we know

[latex]Q_\alpha ^1\neq Q_\alpha ^2[/latex]

 

ie whatever axis of measurement (alpha) - if we use the same axis for particle and entangled pair we get perfect anticorrelation (ie if we measure up for particle we always measure down for pair)

 

we also know that for locally set variables - because we only measure spin up or down that the expected values for particle and its pair when tested on three measurement axes could not all give different results (which is similar to what you had but vitally different)

 

so we can say that

 

[latex]P (Q^1_a\neq Q^2_b)+P (Q^1_c\neq Q^2_a)+P (Q^1_b\neq Q^2_c)\geq 1[/latex]

 

but with angles between axes a, b, c of 2pi/3 we know from predictions and measurement that each of the terms in the above equals 1/4 . So the basic maths tells us that with pre-determined variables and no non-locality the three terms must be greater or equal to one. But quantum mechanical predictions and experimental measurements show that the three terms max out at 3 x 1/4

[TakenItSeriously]

Swansont, Imatfaal,

 

I will return to address your replies shortly after I finish trimming down my response. I'm Just letting you know as a courtesy because I know that I can be slow to respond at times, as you're probably aware.

 

If there is ever such a thing as TLDR syndrome than I'm a candidate for the poster.

 

I tend to waste far too much time making excessive amounts of points before needing to go back and trim them down to something more manageable which may be just a consequence of being too deeply immersed in a problem for too long. It often takes a few days for me to decompress to a level that my responses aren't going to go down some logical tangent every time I try to write a quick response.

 

It's not that the points are irrelevant as they were all very relavant towards my finally understanding the problem to a degreee needed to find the solution, but I keep forgetting that what's relavant to me is not always relavant to a more mathematical perspective.

 

I will try one more time to compose a more reasonable response before I need to grab some sleep.

 

Sorry about the inconvenience and I hope you can understand.

[imatfaal]

There is really no hurry. Take your time and marshal your arguments

[TakenItSeriously]

I just spotted a mistake where I had changed the reference to the detectors as A, B, & C to instead denote more like an axes of measurement of: Y, D, & X where D stood for diagonal.

 

I just noticed some places where I failed to change the older references for the newer ones which I can see as potential sources of confusion in the future.

 

Sorry, it's my fault, but the editing window for the OP has already passed.

 

IDK, What's the best way to address htis issue? It's not a major issue but I could see it becomming annoying for readers who are wondering what people are referring to in their replies..

[swansont]

I just spotted a mistake where I had changed the reference to the detectors as A, B, & C to instead denote more like an axes of measurement of: Y, D, & X where D stood for diagonal.

 

I just noticed some places where I failed to change the older references for the newer ones which I can see as potential sources of confusion in the future.

 

Sorry, it's my fault, but the editing window for the OP has already passed.

 

IDK, What's the best way to address htis issue? It's not a major issue but I could see it becomming annoying for readers who are wondering what people are referring to in their replies..

 

 

Restate it, but do it only a few steps at a time. No sense in going 10 steps in when there's an error in step 2 that nullifies the rest.

[TakenItSeriously]

Sorry, again. I know I'm full of excuses but in the process of going through this analysis again, I went through a kind of divergence which I believe is a logic thing when dealing with proofs that challenge proofs.

 

Think of it like proving a negative only with proofs. (IDK, an inverted negative?).

 

Maybe it's better to think of it like this. logic, when done properly, reduces a problem to its simplest form, therefore when disecting logic (at least in this case) the reverse seems to be true which is the opposite of the convergence which is usually fun, and instead, expands which is a lot more work

 

So a lot more material was required to explain it well. I'ts like the Monty Hall Problem on steroids. Or like poker where you can constantly improve but never know it all.

 

I wanted to get a better idea of how much was going to go into it before getting back to you. Hopefully it will be... soon.

Edited March 7, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[imatfaal]

Glad to read that you are still working on it. To be honest I think you need to separate in your head the logic, the maths, and the experiment. I believe you are coming up against what you think is a mathematical / logical conundrum but in fact it is a misunderstanding of the experimental set up.

 

Remember that Bell's work whilst being accessible and not burdened by huge amounts of recondite higher maths is also very subtle and clever; Bell radically changed things with a short 6 page paper which threw EPR into a completely new light and did what people like Van Neumann had been working on for years.

[TakenItSeriously]

Glad to read that you are still working on it. To be honest I think you need to separate in your head the logic, the maths, and the experiment. I believe you are coming up against what you think is a mathematical / logical conundrum but in fact it is a misunderstanding of the experimental set up.

 

Remember that Bell's work whilst being accessible and not burdened by huge amounts of recondite higher maths is also very subtle and clever; Bell radically changed things with a short 6 page paper which threw EPR into a completely new light and did what people like Van Neumann had been working on for years.

 

Since you mentioned it, The origional bassis for this solution was from a problem I had solved in poker a few years back.

 

By solved I mean bypassed through estimations a similar problem in poker with a concept I called range removal.

 

The idea was to try and capture the last bits of information that was normally lost in the muck in much the same way that black jack recoops some of the information lost in the discard pile, except that instead of counting actual cards, I was counting ranges of hand states that would be either acted upon or folded.

 

I used poker bots in a poker simulator I was also developing at the time which eliminates the indeterministic behavior of humans. You could program them to play much like humans but their ranges would be deterministic by probabilities.

 

Here is the wierd part. I kept getting instances of negative weighted rank averages which sounds a lot like QM -probabilities to me since weighted averages are just percentages like probabilities are percentages or equity calculations are percentages.

 

In theory I could only solve the problem by instantaniously exchanging range information between all hand ranges which were entangled by the shuffle., i.e. in a theoretical hidden state. from player perspectives.

 

Since ranges were also only in a theoretical state. I finally solved the problem by creating a real deck state that was used to deal the actual hands and an imaginary deck state I used to create a biased deck state with weighted averages for ranks. The biased imaginary deckstate could then be used to make revised adjustments in probability calculations.

 

It worked and I was actually able to monticarlo the same results I had calculated.

 

The intriguing aspect was that I had simulated a partial entangled state, not completely in terms of equal opposites, but in terms of each hand range being impacted as soon as the next hand range is created due to the finite number of cards.

 

I essentially did something similar for expected results which is the extent of what I am challenging. nothing about experiments other than taking into account that the ultimate information is collected and analyze at the point after complete information is shared by both parties.

 

i.e. something spooky is still going on.

Edited March 7, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[imatfaal]

As I know next to nothing about Poker and less about programming that all went a bit over my head.

 

I will say that I do not think you are fully conceptualizing the difference between an entangled state in which two objects share a single state of superposition and the classical model when there are two unknown and inter-related states.

[swansont]

Poker is a classical system (it does not follow the rules of QM), so if you found some similarity to entangled states it probably means you are doing it wrong.

 

One distinct difference is that while card information can be hidden, it is still determined. If the next card in the deck (or a card in someone's hand)is the 4 of spades, it is always the 4 of spades (classical/hidden variable). It does not become the 4 of spades only when measured (QM).

[TakenItSeriously]

As I know next to nothing about Poker and less about programming that all went a bit over my head.

 

I will say that I do not think you are fully conceptualizing the difference between an entangled state in which two objects share a single state of superposition and the classical model when there are two unknown and inter-related states.

Poker is a classical system (it does not follow the rules of QM), so if you found some similarity to entangled states it probably means you are doing it wrong.One distinct difference is that while card information can be hidden, it is still determined. If the next card in the deck (or a card in someone's hand)is the 4 of spades, it is always the 4 of spades (classical/hidden variable). It does not become the 4 of spades only when measured (QM).

Im not sure where the cards changeing value trick came into it but no, I dont think that's true at all.

 

Clearly the poker reference wiffed. While its relevant I should have posted under its won topic as a poker analogy to QM or quantum computing so that it would attract only those with the shared interests.

 

poker discussion at the level I was representing is very deep and non-intuitive without the proper prerequisites of understanding first.

 

I'll continue with the restatement instead.

[imatfaal]

Ok - lets ignore the poker. But the take-home point is that if you can model it with a system which is classical (or mimics a classical system) then it does NOT model quantum mechanics. Two unknown sets of cards are just that - two separate sets; they re not sharing a single state of superposition