Non-locality

[Dalo]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well try this for a non technical image. The two polarizations involved in the EPR experiment will be specifically the Linear vertical and horizontal.

The superposition state will involve a combination of the two.

If your example applies to the same problem then Maudlin is wrong and I shouldn't have taken him at his word.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 1:52 PM, Dalo said:

"When calcium vapor is exposed to lasers tuned to a certain frequency it
fluoresces. As excited electrons in the atoms cascade down to their ground
state they give off light. In particular, each atom emits a pair of photons
which travel off in opposite directions. The polarization of the photons individually
shows no preferred direction: for any randomly chosen direction θ
the photons will pass a polarizer oriented in that direction half the time. But
although the photons individually show no particular polarization, the pairs
exhibit some striking correlations. Roughly, each member of a pair always
acts as if it has the same polarization as its partner."

The quote is not mine, but a literal quote from p.12 of the book. I will see if I can find one similar to this one in the article you have shared.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

This isn't a situation where one statement applies to all cases. You have to examine where the statements Maudlin makes applies and when they don't.  I don't have his full book so I can't help there. However the mistake you appear to be making is assuming certain statements apply in every case. We only wish that were true the Universe is far more complex than that.

[Dalo]

On 12/16/2017 at 1:52 PM, Dalo said:

Here again, my pretensions will be modest and limited to this and similar examples. It is too soon to widen my claim to the whole domain of entanglement. Baby steps.

 

[Mordred]

Well if there traveling in opposite direction is at odds with the polarization vs helicity left and right handedness of circular polarization. This is the the primary cause for the photons travelling in different directions.

[Dalo]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

This isn't a situation where one statement applies to all cases. You have to examine where the statements Maudlin makes applies and when they don't.  I don't have his full book so I can't help there. However the mistake you appear to be making is assuming certain statements apply in every case. We only wish that were true the Universe is far more complex than that.

"If the reader is puzzled by
the particulate nature of light it may help to note that experiments
similar to the ones we will describe can also be carried out on protons
and electrons, archetypical particles. In those cases one measures the
so-called “spin” of the particles by passing them through an inhomogeneous
magnetic field." (p.11-12)

"If the filters are misaligned,
then the photons still behave as if they have the same polarization."(p.12)

 

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well if there traveling in opposite direction is at odds with the polarization vs helicity left and right handedness of circular polarization. This is the the primary cause for the photons travelling in different directions.

All these properties are irrelevant in our case, because what is at stake in the example given are the statistical correlations between photon 1 and photon 2 concerning (non circular) polarization. In another case it could be spin, or some other properties like you mentioned.

The logic would, I think, still be the same. Except that, as I have made perfectly clear, I have limited my claim to examples like that given by Maudlin.

Baby steps. Remember?

***

Any difference between photon 1 and photon 2, like circular polarization,  would break entanglement. and make the whole argumentation void. That would be the end of this part of quantum theory.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

again there is incongruities in the statements your quoting. Misaligned filters can and do affect polarizations. What is the title of the book your reading he has several

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

again there is incongruities in the statements your quoting. Misaligned filters can and do affect polarizations. What is the title of the book your reading he has several

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.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

No I am responding directly to the quotes and not even applying the EPR experiment as I have no way of knowing for sure if he is even referring to that experiment specifically.

 

[Dalo]

14 hours ago, uncool said:

Why not?

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.

Just now, Mordred said:

No I am responding directly to the quotes and not even applying the EPR experiment as I have no way of knowing for sure if he is even referring to that experiment specifically.

 

Then I do not understand your objections concerning identical initial polarization.

[Mordred]

You didn't specify that did you. Instead you allowed that to discount that at some point that there is more than one polarity state involved in the experiment. Ie after the beam splitter

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

You didn't specify that did you. Instead you allowed that to discount that at some point that there is more than one polarity state involved in the experiment.

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.

[Mordred]

13 hours ago, Dalo said:

Because it does not matter! It is a matter of logic, it has nothing to do with the actual correlations. The only important thing is that these correlations have to be the same as determined by quantic statistical regularities.

You insist on turning it into a technical matter that can be solved by technical means. 

I say it is a matter of logic. Once you have accepted that both situations are different, then you must accept entanglement and non-local variables as Bell did.

But my whole point is that both situations are in fact equivalent. And you can only prove that by logic and the empirical facts from which the whole situation starts:

1) both photons have the same polarization,

2) both filters are identical in the sense that they could be swapped without changing the experiment.

 

I am sorry, but I cannot make it clearer than this. And if you still think after my explanation that it still is a mathematical or a physics problem then all I can do is give up, because we will keep talking alongside each other, and that would be a waste of time for all of us.

read this post again and tell me what I should think about how you wrote it after all the assistance I tried to provide you.

You basically discounted all effort I put into helping you understand the experiment as meaningless. Which is false you need to understand the experiment to draw any logical conclusions on it. This was right after you discounted the fact that on my first post this thread I asked your permision to discuss what a correlation function is in the first place. The problem here is your trying to use metaphysics to answer physics type problems without taking the time to understand the physics this is useless and utterly pointless. I don't mind metaphysics but only when the person understands the physics he is discussing.

You tend to come off as " I don't understand it then look for some support of poorly understood quotes to back yourself up" and physicists that do understand the problem are in error.

That may not be your intent but that has been how many of your posts have been interpreted and not just by myself

Do you want to know how I read that paper by Maudlin?

it is a debate of whether a correlation function can be used to predict the results of another dataset. Which is shown as being possible to in fact garnish some modicum of prediction via the correlation function.

Now back to the physics, what is a filter? does it not remove unwanted frequencies? ie it only allows a specified frequency through it?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

read this post again and tell me what I should think about how you wrote it after all the assistance I tried to provide you.

You basically discounted all effort I put into helping you understand the experiment as meaningless. Which is false you need to understand the experiment to draw any logical conclusions on it. This was right after you discounted the fact that on my first post this thread I asked your permision to discuss what a correlation function is in the first place. The problem here is your trying to use metaphysics to answer physics type problems without taking the time to understand the physics this is useless and utterly pointless. I don't mind metaphysics but only when the person understands the physics he is discussing

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.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

Ah but I am not tellling you how to think I am trying to increase your knowledge set so you can properly understand what it is your talking about Otherwise you will keep making mistakes. I told you before I couldn't care less what you think or believe. I teach the physics simple as that.

So tell me straight up do you want to understand the physics or not ? if not I can help others who do want to learn

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

Ah but I am not tellling you how to think I am trying to increase your knowledge set so you can properly understand what it is your talking about Otherwise you will keep making mistakes

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.

[Mordred]

thank you for your answer be well its clear by that you have no interest in understanding the actual science. Why didn't you post this in the Philosophy forum instead of a science forum? We do after all have a philosophy forum on this site. You will notice I rarely visit it

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

thank you for your answer be well its clear by that you have no interest in understanding the actual science. Why didn't you post this in the Philosophy forum instead of a science forum?

Is that your main objection to my claim?

It concerns the philosophy of physics, and therefore also physics.

[Mordred]

It only applies to physics if the physics is understood in the first place. One of my degrees has the title Philosophies of cosmology.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

It only applies to physics if the physics is understood in the first place.

Here we go again.

be well too.

[Mordred]

Glad to know not to waste anymore of my time on you have fun and be well. My biggest mistake was thinking you actually wanted to learn.  Ah well at least I know there are plenty of others that has gained from my assistance. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

53 minutes ago, Dalo said:

You should know that just advancing mainstream theory is in itself not an argument.

Mainstream science is supported by (lots of) evidence. 

You can't argue against it with half-baked ideas based on an inability/unwillingness to understand either the science or the theory. All your threads come down to: "I want science to be wrong so I am going to make up some fairy stories that contradict the evidence; therefore the evidence must be wrong".

You would need to present some actual evidence, not what you think should happen in any given experiment.

You are wasting everyone's time. Including your own.

[Dalo]

"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.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Dalo said:

"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.

Maybe. If "the reader" is willing to understand.

You, on the other hand, start with the assumption that science is wrong and then misinterpret everything you read (or just make stuff up) in order to support that belief.

[Dalo]

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Mainstream science is supported by (lots of) evidence. 

You can't argue against it with half-baked ideas based on an inability/unwillingness to understand either the science or the theory. All your threads come down to: "I want science to be wrong so I am going to make up some fairy stories that contradict the evidence; therefore the evidence must be wrong".

You would need to present some actual evidence, not what you think should happen in any given experiment.

You are wasting everyone's time. Including your own.

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.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[uncool]

To clarify a little bit: in the proof of Bell's no-go theorem, the following assumption is made:

 

A classical (local hidden variable) theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int X(\lambda) p(\lambda) d \lambda[/math], according to some (hidden) probability measure p. On the other hand, a quantum theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int \langle \phi | X | \phi\rangle[/math], according to Bohr's rules. The theorem is then that there is a limit to the outcomes from any classical theory that doesn't appear for a quantum theory, as defined there, and therefore (since our experiments match Bohr's rules) that a quantum theory is necessary (or rather, a classical theory is insufficient).

 

You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why, philosophically, should a classical theory require such a mathematical description - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?

Edited December 19, 2017 by uncool