crowded quantum information

[MigL]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

n quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit is a basic unit of quantum information

Information, according to Relativity is constrained to stransfers equal to, or less than, the speed of light.
Are you saying Relativity is wrong ?
 

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

The three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality

No, they did not demonstrate the 'reality of non-locality'.
They demonstrated the absence of local realism.

You can twist and bend that as much as you like, but they are NOT equivalent.

[bangstrom]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Information, according to Relativity is constrained to stransfers equal to, or less than, the speed of light.
Are you saying Relativity is wrong ?

Relativity is correct but Einstein’s second postulate has an exception when it comes to the transactions among entangled particles needing to be no faster than light speed.
 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality

No, they did not demonstrate the 'reality of non-locality'.
They demonstrated the absence of local realism.

You can twist and bend that as much as you like, but they are NOT equivalent.

The absence of local realism was demonstrated by the violation of Bell’s inequalities that showed entangled particles do not have definite values prior to their observation.

The demonstration of a FTL signal between entangled particles is another observation that could violate local realism so either type of observation could do the job.

If one entangled particle is observed to be spin-up the other particle is instantly known to be spin down. This suggests some form of instant transfer of information from the observed particle to the unobserved particle if the the other particle is certain to be anti-correlated. But, perhaps not, there may be something to the entanglement that guaranteed the particles would be anti-coordinated when observed.

Zeilinger demonstrated with his quantum teleportation that the unobserved quantum identity of the second particle can also be determined by an even later entanglement nullifying the ability of the first entanglement to decide the anti-coordinated nature of the entanglement. This strongly suggests a non-local signaling among entangled particles.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Quantum computing is not synonymous with entanglement. Where in discussion of the alleged entanlement “signaling” is it described as a single qubit? (not by you; you seem to only cite your own claim. I mean someone with credibility in the matter) 

Quantum computing involves entanglement for some things such as security keys.

I am having trouble getting this citation to work for details about qubits of information but you can look for:

Videos of Susskind Lectures #1 of #1 bing.com/videos

Or Leonard Sussikind Lecture 1|Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford)

This will probably lead to a long series of videos. Look for the one with Sussikind standing in front of a hand drawn grid.

Skip the first 6 minutes.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your explanation of identifying particle states in connection with entanglement is awkward. If particles that had determined states become entangled, you can’t tell which particle is which afterward, so you can’t tell if particles states have been reversed. 

 

If you know the before and after you can tell if the states have been reversed. If you go to Pisa Italy and find the Eiffel tower where the Leaning tower once stood, you know something has changed.

 

[bangstrom]

20 hours ago, Eise said:

Joigus mentioned it several times. And in Susskind's Quantum Mechanics; the theoretical minimum you find it on page 166. And here you find it on Wikipedia.

So refresh your memory:

The mentioned equations say nothing about the timing of events between entangled particles when one is observed.

I don't see the relevance.

21 hours ago, Eise said:

That simply is not what CHSH is about. It clearly distinguishes the two assumptions on which it is based: locality on one side, realism on the other side.

 

CHSH states that either a violation of locality or a violation of local realism would indicate that entangled particles do not have definite values before observed as is necessary for the EPR hypothesis to be correct. You may say that realism is violated and I ask, Why?

I say the preponderance of experimental evidence in favor of non-locality is evidence enough for dismissing local reality.

In either case, the EPR is no longer valid. Or would you disagree?

 

[bangstrom]

23 hours ago, joigus said:

On 10/21/2022 at 1:52 AM, bangstrom said:

An exception is when newly entangled particles are created by some means such as spontaneous down conversion where their previous states are unknowable.

What do you mean spontaneous?

You mean parametric down conversion of photons? It's essentially the same case we've been discussing all the time.

Spontaneous parametric down conversion is something we have never discussed here because it is difficult enough to explain the results of quantum experiments without getting into the methods and SPDC is used in nearly all quantum experiments.

Down converted UV photons are not parametric until passed through a red filter so it is proper to to leave off the parametric part. SPDC involves passing a powerful UV laser light through a beta-barium borate crystal BBO to generate pairs of entangled photons. When a molecule of the crystal absorbs a UV photon it SPONTANEOUSLY emits two photons of lower energy. This happens much less than one time in a billion so it is a rare event called DOWN CONVERSION.

Two entangled photons of equal wavelength are necessary for experiments. PARAMETRIC means they have equal wavelengths. So a UV light passes through the crystal and rarely a pair of red entangled photons emerges. The red filter allows the photons to pass through without destroying the entanglement because it is not actually a measurement.

 

[joigus]

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

If one entangled particle is observed to be spin-up the other particle is instantly known to be spin down. This suggests some form of instant transfer of information from the observed particle to the unobserved particle if the the other particle is certain to be anti-correlated. But, perhaps not, there may be something to the entanglement that guaranteed the particles would be anti-coordinated when observed.

Yes. There was something: the quantum state. It had all the correlations packed in. So it's not really saying anything about locality. Understood? Let me guess: No.

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

Spontaneous parametric down conversion is [...]

Not necessary, not because of what you say, but because you don't need to explain it to me --I did a seminar on it in 1996-- or to Swansont, or to anybody else here. Physicists have been using PDC for a long time, and Bell already mentions it in his work. The key to its workings is non-linear crystals. The word spontaneous is not necessary, as it involves LASERs, and inherits the S from "spontaneous emission of radiation."

The "spontaneous" part of it, certainly, doesn't add anything significant to the discussion of locality. You keep scavenging for words that seem to suggest non-locality is a fact, which is what you wish to be true. And it's not.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, bangstrom said:

If you know the before and after you can tell if the states have been reversed. If you go to Pisa Italy and find the Eiffel tower where the Leaning tower once stood, you know something has changed.

Not when it’s happening with identical particles. You can’t tell two electrons apart. 
 

 

[Eise]

On 10/22/2022 at 1:55 AM, bangstrom said:

I have no interest in relearning physics from the 1950's.

On 10/11/2022 at 10:26 AM, Eise said:

For what it is worth, the publication years of the sources of my 'authority list':

• Coleman:1994
• Kracklauer: 2002
• Zeilinger: 2010
• Susskind: 2015
• Gell-Man: 2016
• Hossenfelder: 2020

  Addition:

• Your IBM video: 2022

On 10/22/2022 at 1:55 AM, bangstrom said:

The three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality- aka "spooky action at a distance".

Nope. They showed that at least one of both, locality or realism is not valid. All my bulleted authors above say, or tend to, give up on realism, especially Zeilinger himself.  

On 10/22/2022 at 7:17 AM, bangstrom said:

The mentioned equations say nothing about the timing of events between entangled particles when one is observed.

Exactly. Especially, they say nothing about a signal.

On 10/22/2022 at 7:17 AM, bangstrom said:

CHSH states that either a violation of locality or a violation of local realism would indicate that entangled particles do not have definite values before observed as is necessary for the EPR hypothesis to be correct. You may say that realism is violated and I ask, Why?

You are arguing in ill faith. Where CHSC clearly distinguish between the two assumptions, locality and realism, you are suddenly talking about 'locality' and 'local realism'. It was already explained to you ad nauseam that in CHSC 'local realism' means 'locality' and 'realism'. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

  Addition:

• Your IBM video: 2022

Nope. They showed that at least one of both, locality or realism is not valid. All my bulleted authors above say, or tend to, give up on realism, especially Zeilinger himself.  

Exactly. Especially, they say nothing about a signal.

You are arguing in ill faith. Where CHSC clearly distinguish between the two assumptions, locality and realism, you are suddenly talking about 'locality' and 'local realism'. It was already explained to you ad nauseam that in CHSC 'local realism' means 'locality' and 'realism'. 

Last paragraph in response to:

On 10/22/2022 at 7:17 AM, bangstrom said:

CHSH states that either a violation of locality or a violation of local realism would indicate that entangled particles do not have definite values before observed as is necessary for the EPR hypothesis to be correct. You may say that realism is violated and I ask, Why?

Realism is violated by QM in the most glaringly obvious way:

QM uses states for which,

x-projection of spin is up

x-projection of spin is down

x-projection of spin is 40% up / 60% down, 70% up / 30% down, 50% up / 50% down, etc.

In fact, for those states for which x-projection of spin is definitely "up," y-projection of spin is 50%up/50% down, and so is z-projection of spin. So, if you want to make one variable determined, all incompatible variables are undetermined. It has all these tradeoffs built in.

IOW, QM violates realism in a way in which it implements an inherent, irreducible, totally from-the-ground-up indeterminism. Deeply-rooted indeterminism. Indeterministic to the bone and marrow.

It does it in such a way that, for Hilbert spaces of dimension 3 upwards, you can even build 3 mutually commuting observables for which attributing hidden variables to determine the 3 corresponding eigenvalues is impossible (Kochen-Specker theorem.) With space-time not playing even the remotest part in the argument.

Furthermore:

For entangled states with maximal entanglement entropy (Bell, GHZ, etc.) not even the individual quantum states are determined, let alone the underlying "reality" of eigenvalues.

Furthermore:

Identity of a particle doesn't mean anything --anything measurable, that is-- in QM.

[bangstrom]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

On 10/21/2022 at 6:55 PM, bangstrom said:

he three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality- aka "spooky action at a distance".

Nope. They showed that at least one of both, locality or realism is not valid. All my bulleted authors above say, or tend to, give up on realism, especially Zeilinger himself.  

6 hours ago, Eise said:

For what it is worth, the publication years of the sources of my 'authority list':

We obviously have different interpretation of what some of there authorities have said.

As for realism, I say realism is dead, you say realism is dead, Zeilinger says realism is dead. Everybody agrees that realism is dead. What is your fixation about realism that you keep bringing it up again and again.  Can you state your point and move on?

 

6 hours ago, Eise said:

On 10/22/2022 at 12:17 AM, bangstrom said:

The mentioned equations say nothing about the timing of events between entangled particles when one is observed.

Exactly. Especially, they say nothing about a signal.

 The equations said nothing about a signal or the timing of a signal that is why I found them irrelevant.

 

6 hours ago, Eise said:

On 10/22/2022 at 12:17 AM, bangstrom said:

CHSH states that either a violation of locality or a violation of local realism would indicate that entangled particles do not have definite values before observed as is necessary for the EPR hypothesis to be correct. You may say that realism is violated and I ask, Why?

You are arguing in ill faith. Where CHSC clearly distinguish between the two assumptions, locality and realism, you are suddenly talking about 'locality' and 'local realism'. It was already explained to you ad nauseam that in CHSC 'local realism' means 'locality' and 'realism'. 

 What is in ill faith?

I understood that CHSC distinguished between locality and realism BEFORE you clowns tried to explain it again, and again, and again.

What is your objection about local realism? Local realism and realism were both violated by The Bell test so realism is violated simultaneously by different names.

And what is your obsession with the violation of realism. Everyone agrees that realism is dead, dead, dead but you keep bringing it up ad nauseam. What is the point you are trying to make?

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Realism is violated by QM in the most glaringly obvious way:

<snip>

IOW, QM violates realism in a way in which it implements an inherent, irreducible, totally from-the-ground-up indeterminism. Deeply-rooted indeterminism. Indeterministic to the bone and marrow.

Furthermore:

For entangled states with maximal entanglement entropy (Bell, GHZ, etc.) not even the individual quantum states are determined, let alone the underlying "reality" of eigenvalues.

Furthermore:

Identity of a particle doesn't mean anything --anything measurable, that is-- in QM.

These things appear to violate Einstein et al's. EPR article where the individual quantum states are determinate. Do you still claim that the violation of realism does not invalidate Einstein's view of realism?

[joigus]

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Do you still claim that the violation of realism does not invalidate Einstein's view of realism?

As I never claimed that, there is no way that I might still claim that.

Einstein's view of realism is untenable today.

However, Einstein's original argument was about space variables.

But spin cannot be understood in terms of space variables. In fact, spin variables cannot even be consistently understood as coming from any internal reality based on commuting variables, or "just parameters." Period.

Why don't you read what people say, draw conclusions carefully, are rigorous about what you say yourself, and stop offending?

If you did, and were, it would be possible to talk about the interesting problem of why QM --when you hold a certain interpretation of it-- produces this illusion of non-locality that's not really there. There are interesting parallels, possibly, in how biological evolution --when you hold certain interpretation of it--  leads to an illusion of design that's not really there.

But you don't and aren't, so this discussion is leading nowhere.

[hoola]

for some reason, my newer entries were not displayed on the last page, but the first, so let me re iterate what I said recently. If entangled particles can be considered as matter waves only until wavefunction collapse, and each matterwave  has a distinct, but inverted waveform, running parallel to each other, and proximate enough to induce cancellation, then an increase in spatial separation of the two data streams sufficient to cause them to not interfere would allow them to re appear as real data pertaining to both particles properties, allowing the collapse of the wavefunction into their particular structures. The fact of the two data streams being inverted offers the reason to expect the particles to have the opposite spins. I will go back to the bottom of page one to see if they are still there, as they have a more complete dialogue on what I am saying now....well, they certainly are not there, and since the idea will certainly be broadly panned, I will not persue the matter unless there is any interest of a further explanation.

Edited October 24, 2022 by hoola

[joigus]

20 minutes ago, hoola said:

for some reason, my newer entries were not displayed on the last page, but the first, so let me re iterate what I said recently. If entangled particles can be considered as matter waves only until wavefunction collapse, and each matterwave  has a distinct, but inverted waveform, running parallel to each other, proximate enough to cause cancellation, then an increase in spatial separation of the two data streams sufficient to cause them to not interfere, might cause them to re appear as data pertaining to both particles properties, causing collapse of the wavefunction into their particular structures. I will go back to the bottom of page one to see if they are still there, as they have a more complete dialogue on what I am saying now.

You cannot add wavefunctions corresponding to two particles. Superposition is only valid for states of the same system. The wave function of a two-particle quantum state cannot be arranged to add up to zero. In the formalism, this is reflected in that they are functions of different variables. 

Furthermore, you can never totally cancel a quantum state. The zero vector in the state space has no physical significance.

The vacuum that we use in quantum field theory \( \left|0\right\rangle \), for example, is not the zero state vector.

There is no zero state vector in quantum mechanics.

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[hoola]

thank you for the response. To the degree I understand it, it seems a valid criticism.

[MigL]

Furthermore ( since you actually seem interested in this ), this common wave-function, describing the system of entangled particles, is not a wave of anything "real', like a water wave, or pressure waves, or even EM waves.
The best we can say about it, is that it is an indication of probability; the mod of the probability amplitude, squared, is a representation of the probability density.

Does not seem 'real' to me, yet some argue that it is all 'real', and facilitated by faster than light, non-local signalling.

[hoola]

thank you MigL, I am fairly aware as to how systems such as these are detailed, and follow the ideas as best I can, and I expressed the dual matterwave idea so as to attain a visual picture of what is happening, in order to build up an intuitive understanding of these matters. Of course it's a  clumsy mechanistic approach and realized it's pretty laughable when I wrote it, and thankfully the responses have been quite civil.

[joigus]

53 minutes ago, hoola said:

thank you for the response. To the degree I understand it, it seems a valid criticism.

OK. I have a feeling I haven't been very helpful. Let me pick up on @MigL's observation that,

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

this common wave-function, [...] is not a wave of anything "real', like a water wave, or pressure waves, or even EM waves.

Exactly right. These waves, among many other interesting properties, have one particular funny property: They have some kind of a "volume" that must be the same at all times. We call this law "unitarity." This "volume" is actually not ordinary volume. It has no dimensions, it must always add up to one, and we understand it as probability. The probability of all the alternatives of an experiment must add up to one. It makes sense. You cannot have a quantum wave become zero, even for a split second, because this "zero wave" would have "zero volume."

So you can never have any physical process make the quantum wave shrink out of "existence," so to speak, even for the shortest period of time.

4 minutes ago, hoola said:

thank you MigL, I am fairly aware as to how systems such as these are detailed, and follow the ideas as best I can, and I expressed the dual matterwave idea so as to attain a visual picture of what is happening, in order to build up an intuitive understanding of these matters. Of course it's a  clumsy mechanistic approach and realized it's pretty laughable when I wrote it, and thankfully the responses have been quite civil.

Let me tell you something. Believe me, there's no "laughable" idea that you can think of which there isn't a similarly "laughable" idea I haven't thought of before, or MigL, or anyone of us. It's not laughable at all what you say. We know it doesn't work for the reasons I tried, to the best of my abilities, to explain.

Very eminent physicists and mathematicians have ventured down really deep rabbit holes in order to try and explain these things.

So bad it is that humanity lost very valuable people down those holes. Einstein is perhaps the best example.

I think David Bohm was another one. But that's another story.

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

These waves, among many other interesting properties, have one particular funny property: They have some kind of a "volume" that must be the same at all times. We call this law "unitarity." This "volume" is actually not ordinary volume. It has no dimensions, it must always add up to one, and we understand it as probability.

Note that, as MigL stated, it’s the square of the wave that has this property.

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, joigus said:

15 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Do you still claim that the violation of realism does not invalidate Einstein's view of realism?

As I never claimed that, there is no way that I might still claim that.

Einstein's view of realism is untenable today.

However, Einstein's original argument was about space variables.

But spin cannot be understood in terms of space variables. In fact, spin variables cannot even be consistently understood as coming from any internal reality based on commuting variables, or "just parameters." Period.

Why don't you read what people say, draw conclusions carefully, are rigorous about what you say yourself, and stop offending?

There is a statement by Einstein often referred to as the EPR Criterion of Reality:

“If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.”

MigL said on Sept 9, “Say I take a pair of gloves, and put one in one sealed box, and the other in another sealed box. I give you one box and a plane ticket to Australia, and the other box to Joigus. Neither of you knows which glove is in your box.
When you get to Australia, you open the box, and find a right-handed, or left-handed glove.”

As soon as you've done that, you immediately know the handedness of the glove in Joigus' box, as they are correlated by pairing.

No information transferred, and the only 'black boxes' are the ones that held the gloves.”

This fits Einstein’s “Criterion of Reality” like a glove where you have an undisturbed system with predicted certainty and you appeared to endorse this point of view.

You said of Sept. 12 “Go back to the example of the gloves that MigL was talking about. One glove goes to Australia and the other stays with me. I open the box and find out that it's LH. I thereby know immediately that hoola got the RH one. Would you think for a moment that one glove corresponds to the right hand and the other to the left hand because some "spooky action at a distance" has taken place between them? That's what's foolish to say. The gloves are perfectly anti-correlated just because the correlation was there from the beginning. “

That sounds like an endorsement of Einstein’s reality where you have an undisturbed system with a predictable element of reality, “because the correlation was there from the beginning.” Perhaps instead of asking about Einstein’s reality I should have asked if you still adhere to the gloves in boxes scenario.

 

 

[Eise]

17 hours ago, bangstrom said:

We obviously have different interpretation of what some of there authorities have said.

Yes. You bend their words, I read what they really are saying. I read the text as a whole, and do not pick out citations that fit me best.

17 hours ago, bangstrom said:

As for realism, I say realism is dead

Only after you redefined realism to contain locality. Zeilinger and your IBM lady are very clear: 2 distinct assumptions flow into the CHSH inequality: realism and locality. In this whole thread you were defending that we should give up on locality. And now you are saying that instead we should give up on realism??

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Eise

[joigus]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Note that, as MigL stated, it’s the square of the wave that has this property.

Sure. Because Hoola said "to the degree I understand it", I felt I needed to avoid words like "a metrical property" which are more adecuate. This metrical property goes with the mod squared.

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

That sounds like an endorsement of Einstein’s reality where you have an undisturbed system with a predictable element of reality, “because the correlation was there from the beginning.” Perhaps instead of asking about Einstein’s reality I should have asked if you still adhere to the gloves in boxes scenario.

Here. Again:

13 hours ago, joigus said:

However, Einstein's original argument was about space variables.

But spin cannot be understood in terms of space variables. In fact, spin variables cannot even be consistently understood as coming from any internal reality based on commuting variables, or "just parameters." Period.

There are many questions here that can be invoked in the same context:

Completeness (where do "classical" data come from?)

Indefiniteness (where were those "classical" data stored before the measurement?)

Locality (do we need to introduce some kind of superluminal updating to implement "classical" data?)

Counterfactuals (why are there measurements without interaction?)

You could throw in more (contextuality, delayed-choice, etc.), but they're all related to each other.

The quantum state holds the key to most of the "paradoxes," but you need to keep the character of QM in all of them. I told you, it's like a house of cards. If you remove randomness in a particular way --print something in the state, so to speak, and still use its built-in correlations-- you would be able to send FTL signals..., etc.

Why did I talk about gloves? Was I endorsing Einstein's view? No, I wasn't. I introduced it the same reason that John Bell introduced Bertlmann's socks example: To show that in order to have perfect anti-correlation at a distance, you don't need any non-local mechanism going on.

But no pair of gloves, boots, coins, astronauts, etc. can give you the other quantum correlations for spin:

statistical variance of (A) = 1/2

statistical variance of (not A) = 1/2

statistical variance of (A+not A) = 0

statistical variance of (A+C) = statistical variance of (not A+C) = 1/2

for other C's incompatible with A, because classical observables don't have this character of incompatibility.

A, B, and C are spin projections.

Incompatibility comes from non-commutativity. If you listen carefully to Sidney Coleman's talk --or read the transcript--, this particular point becomes very clear, as well as how John V. Neumann understood this very clearly, and never got entangled in silly discussions about non-locality.

How that endorses Einstein's view of realism, when Einstein spent the last 25-odd years of his life thinking about other things and not accepting QM, is beyond me. Einstein was concerned with trajectories of particles. Go back to the paper and tell me if he ever mentions spin. He doesn't. He never did. He didn't even accept lambda hyperons, and other elementary particles, because he thought somehow all these quantised features would some day be deduced from a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism.

Einstein was thinking about particle trajectories, nothing else. The lesser-known paper with Tolman and Podolsky, Knowledge of Past and Future in Quantum Mechanics, and others, prove that very clearly.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

 [...] because he thought somehow all these quantised features would some day be deduced from a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism.

 

Disclaimer: I don't mean I endorse this view. In fact, it's shocking to me that someone like Einstein held any hopes that a classical theory of EM and gravity could some day explain spin, radiation spectra, particle spectra, etc.

The very first time you see and understand commutation rules in QM, and the utterly fundamental role they play in it, it dawns on you: There's something here that no classical way of thinking can reproduce.

I once read --it may have been on one of James Gleick's books-- that Einstein was presented with Feynman's brand-new path-integral formulation of QM by Oppenheimer, so as to intimidate him with the beauty of it. His answer was something to the effect of "Oh, I think I've earned my right to be wrong by now."

If the story is true, Einstein was very much aware that he must have been left something out. Something essential.

So no, in case there's any doubt, I do not endorse Einstein's view.

But his argument about particle trajectories. Oh, be in no doubt; that still holds.

Dear @bangstrom. Here, again:

On 10/15/2022 at 4:02 PM, joigus said:

But he (and Rosen, and Podolski) missed a couple of tricks.

1) You cannot prepare a bipartite quantum state in which the momentum is zero in the CoM system with total accuracy. So momentum is actually always indefinite.

2) The state is actually entangled: (momentum p)_{particle 1}(position x)_{particle 2}-(momentum -p)_{particle 1}(position -x)_{particle 2}.

Here, David Bohm enters the story. He took the whole discussion to the case of spin. Why? Because angular momentum is exactly conserved, but for angular momentum (spin is a particular case) you can actually prepare states that are totally indefinite in each variable, while completely definite for the sum of both. Then you can do the correlation analysis very cleanly, and reasonably clearly.

On 10/16/2022 at 2:39 PM, joigus said:

The EPR argument, in its original form, is quite flawed. I've tried to explain why somewhere else:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127991-an-analogy-for-superposition/#comment-1219399

[bangstrom]

On 10/24/2022 at 3:17 AM, Eise said:

On 10/21/2022 at 6:55 PM, bangstrom said:

The three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality- aka "spooky action at a distance".

Nope. They showed that at least one of both, locality or realism is not valid. All my bulleted authors above say, or tend to, give up on realism, especially Zeilinger himself.  

Why do you say they did not demonstrate non-locality. That was what was so remarkable about their discoveries and the discovery of non-locality is what most clearly violates locality and realism.

 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

On 10/24/2022 at 10:52 AM, bangstrom said:

As for realism, I say realism is dead

Only after you redefined realism to contain locality. Zeilinger and your IBM lady are very clear: 2 distinct assumptions flow into the CHSH inequality: realism and locality. In this whole thread you were defending that we should give up on locality. And now you are saying that instead we should give up on realism??

 

This is a serious misunderstanding if you think it is an EITHER-OR binary choice. I explained that realism AND locality are BOTH violated. If you go to Paris and find that the Leaning Tower has instantly swapped places with the Eiffel tower (entangled particles can do this) that would be a non-local event as well as violations of BOTH locality and realism.

If you have read and understood Zeilinger you should know that he did not support realism but he strongly supports non-locality. Realism and locality are not mutually exclusive. Non-locality violates realism and I think that should be obvious.

[Ghideon]

On 10/22/2022 at 1:55 AM, bangstrom said:

The three Nobel prize winners won their laurels for demonstrating the reality of non-locality- aka "spooky action at a distance

I can't find support for that in official statements*; can you provide a link? Or is it your interpretation of the experimental results?

(The short official reason* is: "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science")

 

*) From the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, responsible for selecting the Nobel Prize laureates in physics, example https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf  

Edited October 25, 2022 by Ghideon

[joigus]

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

This is a serious misunderstanding if you think it is an EITHER-OR binary choice. I explained that realism AND locality are BOTH violated. If you go to Paris and find that the Leaning Tower has instantly swapped places with the Eiffel tower (entangled particles can do this) that would be a non-local event as well as violations of BOTH locality and realism.

No, it's not. It's actually a very quick and surprisingly deep understanding of the question, IMO, from someone that declares not to be all that familiar with the mathematical formalism. @Eise has understood this very clearly IMO. He's a very careful and attentive, and deep reader, and he has corrected me when I (wrongly) quoted Bell, when it really was Einstein quoted by Bell. It's you who, for some reason, keep saying that non-locality has been proven. After the last entry on my part, you've decided not to respond. You do this again and again.

Mind you, the most dangerous thing concerning this topic is taking at face value what many people in a half-arsed way think they understand about it. You may end up wasting millions of SGD (Singapore Dollars) in declaring such stupid things as "oh, wow, my tardigrade got entangled with my qubit, how about that?"

Silly, silly, stupid, mind-numbing nonsense "scientoids" --rather than science facts--, hyped to the max, totally void of content, expressed in a deliberately confusing and ambiguous language, and responsible in a big way for the bad image of science in the minds of many intelligent laypeople in this revolting, repugnant, post-truth age!

[MigL]

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

If you go to Paris and find that the Leaning Tower has instantly swapped places with the Eiffel tower (entangled particles can do this)

No, they can NOT !
They do not have a state to 'swap' from.