## Bell's Theorem error....

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: Back to Nature

Scott wrote:the experiments I'm discussing that uses spins with the Bell's Inequality demanding that the solution must prove to be 2/3 at least, when nature shows the result to be 1/2, is being argued to mean that entangled particles communicate instantaneously through space no matter how far apart they are. … "God-works-in-mysterious-ways" by magically allowing instantaneous transfer of information in space.

No information, energy or matter transfers from one particle to the other. So it's not a "communication". If you keep thinking it is, you'll keep thinking that entanglement somehow violates speed limit c. It doesn't. QM makes no such claim, quite the contrary. The entanglement connection is non-traversable. It serves only as a common reference for which entangled particle behaviors, such as spin can be mutually oriented (i.e. "correlated"). Please, read that over a few times, as it is essential to QM.

Further the spin correlation you refer to occurs in individual particles. The probabilistic relation between two different spin measures in a single particle are the same as those between two entangled particles (specifically, Green's example is analogous to a "total spin 1" pair of spin½ particles.)

Scott wrote:For the Monty Hall problem, the 1/2 solution occurs WHEN one only plays one single game independent of multiple plays.

"Probability" implies an adequate sample, even if you only wish to consider a single outcome. 50 percent, literally means 50/100. Let's not loose site of that.

Scott wrote:This is because you need at LEAST 2 events (2 games) to exhaust the odds involved.

What does that mean? If you mean, at least two flips of a coin are needed to reveal both sides, OK. So what? The more a coin is flipped the more evident its fairness will be.

Scott wrote:That is why in one single game, you cannot actually predict whether you will actually win or lose based on 3 initial choices. Instead, all that matters by "nature" is that you either WIN or LOSE, a binary relationship dependent only on the second round. …1/2 is the reality in even an infinity of possible trials.

The same win:lose binary value applies to a lottery ticket but that doesn't change its odds of being a winning ticket to 50% when millions of other such tickets have been sold.

Scott wrote:…you don't understand that the Copenhagen interpretation treats such a 'clock' as having a hand pointing to ALL numbers at once LITERALLY (not simply a mathematical practice)

On the contrary, see 3rd paragraph from the bottom of my post. That is precisely my position as well. I provide a simple, explicit mechanism for it.

Scott wrote:But the QM interpretation treats this as though the shoes shift between the kinds of orientation they are (both left to both right).

That's correct! The closest to this concept with spin is the transparent clock example above. In QM however, this occurs in every spatial direction at once (three axes independent). The only mechanism I can offer for this is that they project from primary spin on a 4th dimensional axis (time). QM has not yet recognized this, but neither has it been eliminated, nor is there any other competing mechanism. (next 2 paragraphs optional)

Imagine a clear clock flipped like a coin. When facing up, an observer looking down will see its hands moving clockwise. When its facing down the same observer looking down will see the hands spin counter clockwise. Similarly for an observer looking left. Half the time clockwise spin, half the time counter. If the flip motion has precession, a viewer from in front will find the same thing. Three independent spin axes, each revealing either clockwise or counter clockwise spin with equal probability. The clock can only be observed parallel to one viewing plane at a time. That's roughly analogous to single-particle quantum spin.

For entanglement, let a rod connect two clocks centrally along the axis of their spinning hands. If they face the same direction, and the system moves as the flipping clock above, observers will again find opposite spins at opposite ends of the rod, no matter which angle they view from. No communication occurs through the rod. It only serves as a common axis from which the clocks orient (correlate) the spins of their hands.

Scott wrote:If the spins are entangled ONLY in terms that they originate as being opposites, opening one box assures you KNOW what the other is at that exact time. But it doesn't mean that the spins jump instantly in time to the other location to tell it how it must be. They are 'predesignated' to be opposites regardless.

Correct! With a rapidly flipping clock, you can't know, until you look, which way the hands will be spinning but you can always be sure they will spin oppositely, seen from the other side.

Scott wrote: This is that "HIDDEN FACTOR" that the EPR is discussing. They are saying that we discover the opposite spin only BECAUSE their original connection makes them entangled

The connection between entangled particles is now considered equivalent to a non-traversable wormhole.[1, 2, 3] It acts as the rod between the two clocks above. Nothing communicates through it. It only serves to orient the spins of the entangled particles (i.e. it provides for "correlation"). If you wish to consider it a hidden factor, that's fine.

Scott wrote:The pairs do not swap realities in space until one opens one from one end.

They share oppositeness. Neither has definite spin until someone does a measurement. Neither can you tell me which way the hands of a clear clock are spinning until you decide which side to view it from.

Scott wrote:Only by the collective nature does the probability mean anything.

Yes! But even if you roll a fair die just once, you have a 1/6 chance of getting a five.

Scott wrote:See, you are predefining QM to BE weird…

QM was "weird" all along. There's no ultraviolet catastrophe because, as Planck reasoned, atoms have discrete orbitals. That's weird compared to a classical orbiting a satellite. Up there, you can adjust your speed to get continuously varying altitudes. Around an atom, not so. They have a few allowable energy levels and that's it. Weird…

…until it's explained by a particle's wave nature and harmonic orbitals. But that's also weird and so on…and so on…entanglement & Bells theorem.

Scott wrote:…people assumed nature through these experiments had 'cheated' by cleverly being capable of having 'superposition' powers. This is false BECAUSE of the flaws in interpretation I'm proving here.

You're biting off more than you can chew. Repeatedly firing single electrons (or photons) through a two path interferometer results in interference patterns (as long as no "which path" information is being collected). That means that an electron is effectively taking both paths at once ("path superposition"). Superposition has been around since long before anyone was talking about entanglement.

Scott wrote:…all that 'matters' in ONE specific Monty Hall game never to be played again is the second round because it is identical to the logic of you coming into the middle of the second round… When you 'believe' THAT the 2/3 solution is infallible, you ignore that nature in the Bell/QM precisely negates this. … Nature picks 1/2 as the solution.

If I tune late in to "Let’s Make a Deal" (Monty's TV show), missing the first round, does that change the odds for the second round to 1/2? No! Other people (and Nature) were watching the first round all along. The odds for switching remain 2/3.

Scott wrote:Do you accept or not the comparison of the Bell/QM experiment to the Monty Hall puzzle?

I've explained my answer several times. No.

Active Member

Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

Faradave » December 11th, 2016, 12:43 pm wrote:To put the main question I asked to even determine if it IS possible for you to follow at the start and NOT the end:

Scott wrote:Do you accept or not the comparison of the Bell/QM experiment to the Monty Hall puzzle?

I've explained my answer several times. No.

Then unless I am able to even get you to that point, there is nothing you will listen to. You had not justified HOW you 'explained' this negation other than claiming it and then trying to posit your own understanding assuming I'm making some error you haven't established of mine other than an I-am-wrong stance. HOW is the Monty Hall puzzle NOT related? Is there even any remote likeness? I began going simple above to which you nor Dave (or the other 'Dave') hadn't answered specifically.

Mulder <--> Host; Scully <--> Guest [or inversed] The difference is that in the Bell/QM experiment, neither knows the when they pick the same door with a particular assigned value. All that matters is that they both pick the same door just as the host must pick WHERE the prize will be as 1/3 and the guest selects one door 1/3. It is automatic that whatever Mulder picks, if Scully picks that door it is a win because they'll either be both blue or both red.

Three ingoing choices for both with a binary reality to be finalized.
Three distinct doors, two distinct outcomes (red or blue) versus (prize or no-prize). All that differs is that the value we place upon a no-prize is treated as a door that both do NOT pick the same. But for whatever value they DO pick, the same is in the other's door UNLESS quantum weirdness prevents this in some way.

Scott wrote:the experiments I'm discussing that uses spins with the Bell's Inequality demanding that the solution must prove to be 2/3 at least, when nature shows the result to be 1/2, is being argued to mean that entangled particles communicate instantaneously through space no matter how far apart they are. … "God-works-in-mysterious-ways" by magically allowing instantaneous transfer of information in space.

No information, energy or matter transfers from one particle to the other. So it's not a "communication". If you keep thinking it is, you'll keep thinking that entanglement somehow violates speed limit c. It doesn't. QM makes no such claim, quite the contrary. The entanglement connection is non-traversable. It serves only as a common reference for which entangled particle behaviors, such as spin can be mutually oriented (i.e. "correlated"). Please, read that over a few times, as it is essential to QM.

Further the spin correlation you refer to occurs in individual particles. The probabilistic relation between two different spin measures in a single particle are the same as those between two entangled particles (specifically, Green's example is analogous to a "total spin 1" pair of spin½ particles.)

Then what do you think the fuss with Einstein was all about? Why was the EPR paradox proposed at all? Why was Bell's addition of math being used by experimenters to overthrow the EPR as being wrong?

It's not me in error in understanding here. You are taking a false and confusing assumption that this was NOT about the weirdness and which is a specific interpretation THAT spooky action at a distance is occurring. Superposition was NOT assumed certain UNTIL the experiments against the EPR and use of Bell's theorem. Einstein and others did NOT assume there was anything 'weird' like superposition of reality. They DID understand that probabilities only represented practical functions of limits NOT spooky magical ones.

You are wrong that the experiments are NOT about transferring information at an instant. What those IN QM DO agree with is that while this occurs, it cannot be USED to transmit communication by US humans. They only interpret that the instant upon observation, the information at the other end is instantly determined BY the observer at the distant point. You cannot USE it to transmit INTENTIONAL information because the act of even imposing a desired data (like actually having a host initially place a car inside one of the doors) is impossible. Mulder nor Scully decide WHAT will be in a box and then expect the other to notice. The argument is about the point in between where the entanglement begins by nature.

The EPR says that nature predetermines the stage (a hidden factor) going into entanglement that assures each component will be opposite, not the ACT of opening the box at one end to DECIDE that the other will be the opposite. The experiments were used to PROVE (or try to) that the factors themselves are indeterminate at one end ONLY until one of the other is opened, NOT BOTH! It says that if one interprets the speed of one particle using some method a billion trillion miles away, that instantaneously the other speed POPS into BEING the same based ON the effect of the other observing.

And the experiments used to do this assimilate the Monty Hall problem exactly OTHER than that the 'host' is equally unknowing. Thus it SHOULD be 1/2 and IS but they falsely deemed that it should be identical to the Monty Hall solution of 2/3. The unpredictable loss of 1/6 is what they are saying is the uncertainty of nature to 'fit' with the expected 2/3. Thus they deem this proof of superposition instead of the FACT that their math is wrongly applied. They have thus used an improper calculator. Both the calculator AND the experiment can be independently valid but their combination is NOT. Thus 'superposition' is also false about 'entanglement' because they assume that the literal reality of the particle's factors independently are in two simultaneous states that collapse to become ONE only by the mere effect of some distant observer!!

I assure you I'm the one correct on this one. And if you don't believe me, then check out all the numerous YouTube videos supporting this very fact. The experiment using Bell's theorem was to prove that spooky action at a distance occurs, not that you can use it to communicate via humans. The 'communication' is to the particles themselves as though no distance matters. To Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen, they showed HOW you CAN determine two distinct factors even at a distance without adding any 'weirdness' of spooky action. And it is precisely your accidental interpretation that is the HIDDEN FACTORS! That is, they each have a complementary spin at ALL times because they CAME FROM THE SAME SOURCE of creation only when they first 'split'. Thus if you could 'freeze-frame' a point in time, if one is red, the other is red too. For the spins, if it is an up spin in the y-axis, it is a complementary down spin for the other. This is NOT weirdness and is NOT superposition. Superposition is the state where both are both up and down spins unpredictably by nature.

This is like if we both had exact identical boxes in which we STARTED out with two coins with one a head and the other tail up in the box, then shook them IDENTICALLY with all exactness while one walks one way and the other, the other way. Then at ANY distance, as soon as any one of us at our distant locations suddenly stopped the shaking and opened the box, the other coin in the other box, instantly decides to stop the box shaking and land exactly in complement with its pair. THIS is the spooky action at a distance. That what I do on one end no matter how far in space I am that instantly specifies the other is like saying that you can shoot a bullet from two guns in different directions but if one of them hits a wall, the other acts in concert even if there was nothing it hit. It would suddenly 'know' THAT the ACT of the first bullet to be interfered with determines how the other one will behave regardless of LOCAL causes.

Scott wrote:For the Monty Hall problem, the 1/2 solution occurs WHEN one only plays one single game independent of multiple plays.

"Probability" implies an adequate sample, even if you only wish to consider a single outcome. 50 percent, literally means 50/100. Let's not loose site of that.

Probability is a tool of an uncertain measure, not a precise reality. Nature is NOT fair and so you cannot expect it to obey the way you design it to. If a coin has two possibilities, nature predetermines the outcome of the toss and doesn't make both possibilities true until you observe them. Our lack of 'knowledge' is all that we deem probable by virtue of an assumption of 'fairness'. And that is why earlier above I showed that 'fairness' is like if that if you knew the original as heads, then you can predict (by fairness) that every two tosses are CERTAIN to be heads 100%. That is why if you increase the sample to MEET the point at which the randomness is lost, it becomes fair but no longer 'random'. "random" is what occurs unpredictably only.

You gave an example in a link below with your spinning arrow of three EQUAL spaced options as 'god' would according to you. This is NOT the case. In fact, I've literally thought of the same kind of thing but as follows:

Nature's randomness begins like this:

(1) Beginning with a BLANK circle and the hand pointing any direction, reorient it so the hand is facing 'up'. That is don't turn the hand to face up, move your own perspective to wherever the clock hand was last and define that as the zero at 12 o'clock.

(2) Spin the hand randomly at any relatively unpredictable way. Where it stops, mark that on the clock, You now have a clock split in two randomly. Now assign any side of these non-symmetric halves uniquely. then

(3) Begin another separate clock and repeat. Remember to be the one to alter your perspective to find the initial zero. Then, keeping their orientation, take the second clock and superimpose in over the other in the exact way they are presently lying. The second clock's hand will overlap either the same area of the circle as the other clock or not.

(4) If both are the 'same', this will be assigned, heads, and if not, it is tails.

THAT is how nature operates. It doesn't take biased favor to evenly distribute the odds. In any one specific event, it assigns them completely uniquely. So you might have what appears as heads to be 70% and tails to be 30% of once circle. The possibilities are 1/2 but their probabilities are NOT fair. Then the reality is 100% of only one of them.

Scott wrote:This is because you need at LEAST 2 events (2 games) to exhaust the odds involved.

What does that mean? If you mean, at least two flips of a coin are needed to reveal both sides, OK. So what? The more a coin is flipped the more evident its fairness will be.

See last point. Nature isn't 'fair' like your equally spaced divisions. It is only 'fair' THAT the possibilities will be involved only, not their literal weights. So you cheat by treating multiple repeated events to assure the outcome you want when you pre-assign equal weights that nature itself does not.

Scott wrote:That is why in one single game, you cannot actually predict whether you will actually win or lose based on 3 initial choices. Instead, all that matters by "nature" is that you either WIN or LOSE, a binary relationship dependent only on the second round. …1/2 is the reality in even an infinity of possible trials.

The same win:lose binary value applies to a lottery ticket but that doesn't change its odds of being a winning ticket to 50% when millions of other such tickets have been sold.

Your odds of tossing a single coin is 1/2. But if you toss another, it is still 1/2 for that independent coin. However, if you asked what the odds of getting two heads in a row is, this becomes 1/4. Notice that the 'dimensions' that are DIFFERENT (one toss for a single event versus the collective toss as another dimension). This is reversed if you begin with a tetrahedral die for one toss and then ask what your odds of receiving at least a 2 in any of them collectively. That would go from 1/4 to 1/2. These are distinct dimensions and so cannot be compared.

In the Monty Hall problem, you want two distinct dimensions to be true simultaneously, the sequential set of events AND the simultaneous events in one game. These are two different KINDS of probability. The simultaneous event is 1/2 going in and 1 going out. The collective sequential ones are 1/2 for the first, 2/2 for the second, then 2/3 for the third IF "FAIR". But because this isn't the case, it requires repeating it until the average of equal balanced weights turn into the same as treating each possibility equal. But then it is no longer 'random'.

Scott wrote:…you don't understand that the Copenhagen interpretation treats such a 'clock' as having a hand pointing to ALL numbers at once LITERALLY (not simply a mathematical practice)

On the contrary, see 3rd paragraph from the bottom of my post. That is precisely my position as well. I provide a simple, explicit mechanism for it.

And I corrected this to the way nature operates....with non-determinate balances by US humans. You think that each are 'fair' weighted as such. But given my example above, if the predetermined outcome by nature in one sample is 30:70, all that occurs is that at any point in time, if one is 30, the opposite is 70 and vice versa, not that they have equal weights. That treats the halves perfectly arbitrary if you have:

Box 1 vs Box 2
..H.............H <--
..H.............T
..T.............H
..T.............T <--

Where the two are the same OR the two are different, are not possible. If the complements are such that we are discussing spin, then only the HT or the TH are occurring at once. The Copenhagen interpretation says that they are all four possibilities but collapse only to the two possibilities in the middle when one 'observes' one of them. It is never HH or TT BUT the interpretation assures this is 'true' as well in some magical reality.

Scott wrote:But the QM interpretation treats this as though the shoes shift between the kinds of orientation they are (both left to both right).

That's correct! The closest to this concept with spin is the transparent clock example above. In QM however, this occurs in every spatial direction at once (three axes independent). The only mechanism I can offer for this is that they project from primary spin on a 4th dimensional axis (time). QM has not yet recognized this, but neither has it been eliminated, nor is there any other competing mechanism. (next 2 paragraphs optional)

Imagine a clear clock flipped like a coin. When facing up, an observer looking down will see its hands moving clockwise. When its facing down the same observer looking down will see the hands spin counter clockwise. Similarly for an observer looking left. Half the time clockwise spin, half the time counter. If the flip motion has precession, a viewer from in front will find the same thing. Three independent spin axes, each revealing either clockwise or counter clockwise spin with equal probability. The clock can only be observed parallel to one viewing plane at a time. That's roughly analogous to single-particle quantum spin.

For entanglement, let a rod connect two clocks centrally along the axis of their spinning hands. If they face the same direction, and the system moves as the flipping clock above, observers will again find opposite spins at opposite ends of the rod, no matter which angle they view from. No communication occurs through the rod. It only serves as a common axis from which the clocks orient (correlate) the spins of their hands.

You confuse perspective differences but keep the 'hidden' variable, which is what QM is saying is NOT true. It is saying, like the above of the coins, that ALL possible arrangements/combinations coexist so that nature itself is indeterminate until a biased observer witnesses this. In other words, you just proved that you do NOT understand the problem because you are actually supporting the non-Copenhagen interpretation by that example in that there is a 'hidden causal connection that makes them have coinciding correspondence. The Copenhagen interpretation is literally saying that if you STOP one clock to observe it somewhere in the universe, that it also 'STOPS' the other AND that should a second clock be tied to each as well, the observation of the one destroys the capacity of one to try to use the stopped clock at the other end to predict the value of the other.

It says that if you measured the position of a bullet being shot in one direction, the effect of measuring that bullet effects the other so that you cannot even determine the velocity of the other as distinct measures. This is how the EPR described HOW you could do this. You just only do one KIND of measure at the other and it instantaneously informs you of the other. The problem is that the thought experiment should still 'fail' if only because of the bullet example. In reality, if you stop one bullet, the other continues. And so you might have completely different measures of both position and speed. But then this is only about a lack of knowledge, not reality itself with respect to itself.

Scott wrote:If the spins are entangled ONLY in terms that they originate as being opposites, opening one box assures you KNOW what the other is at that exact time. But it doesn't mean that the spins jump instantly in time to the other location to tell it how it must be. They are 'predesignated' to be opposites regardless.

Correct! With a rapidly flipping clock, you can't know, until you look, which way the hands will be spinning but you can always be sure they will spin oppositely, seen from the other side.
Your just repeating the mistakes I just pointed out above. Your arguing FOR the Einstein's position of non-weirdness here then turn around to embrace superposition as though these are distinct. The 'superposition' involved in this entanglement is NOT saying they have corresponding pairs of reality, but that they have BOTH realities at ONCE in EACH of its entangled particles. If I send off a specific right and left handed shoe in the mail, the Copenhagen interpretation says that even if I knew that I sent you a specific left shoe, that because the other pair is a right shoe, they shift being both a right and left shoe until YOU or the other person opens their box. It assumes that my 'hidden' knowledge of causation is irrelevant and that only the observers selectively force what is true to appear inside the box by 1/2. It says that I, sending you specifically the left handed shoe can only say that you may get a left hand shoe or a right hand shoe by 1/2 but that I don't know.

Scott wrote: This is that "HIDDEN FACTOR" that the EPR is discussing. They are saying that we discover the opposite spin only BECAUSE their original connection makes them entangled

The connection between entangled particles is now considered equivalent to a non-traversable wormhole.[1, 2, 3] It acts as the rod between the two clocks above. Nothing communicates through it. It only serves to orient the spins of the entangled particles (i.e. it provides for "correlation"). If you wish to consider it a hidden factor, that's fine.
And this 'wormhole' philosophy derived out of the experiment I'm discussing as a post hoc explanation for 'why' they think spooky action at a distance is 'true'. I'm saying their determination prior to those explanations in retrospect cannot even be raised if the logic of the experiments used are themselves flawed.

The rest of this is just redundantly argued and I'd just be repeating this. I'll wait on this. But I need you to try to see the relationship of the Monty Hall Problem with the Bell/QM and now of the things above here too.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Determined to be Indeterminate

Scott wrote:HOW is the Monty Hall puzzle NOT related [to spin correlations of QM]?
… the host [Monty] must pick WHERE the prize will be

Monty's doors are classical, each having a definite state, a particular value (prize or none).

In QM, if you find a quantum spin projection "UP" on an electron’s z-axis (with a Stern-Gerlach device), it will remain so as many times as you recheck it. However, if you subsequently measure spin on the x-axis, then recheck the z-axis, there is only a 50% chance it will again be "UP". This is an established fact. Unlike Monty's prize, quantum spin has indeterminate sign, prior to measurement.

We seem to be talking past each other. As I'm unwilling to equate Bell's theorem to the Monty Hall problem or that the latter is wrongly evaluated, you can save time by skipping the rest.

Scott wrote:Then what do you think the fuss with Einstein was all about? Why was the EPR paradox proposed at all? Why was Bell's addition of math being used by experimenters to overthrow the EPR as being wrong?

Like you, Einstein adhered to a strictly determinist world view. EPR didn't acknowledge indeterminate spin, particularly the entangled variety.

Scott wrote:You are taking a false and confusing assumption that this was NOT about the weirdness and which is a specific interpretation THAT spooky action at a distance is occurring.

It’s not an "action", it’s a change in state. If you're on Mars and the lottery ticket you left on earth hits the jackpot, your status changes to "millionaire" instantly, regardless of distance. If you don't believe me, just ask the IRS, which will withhold tax, before you even get the check!

Scott wrote:You are wrong that the experiments are NOT about transferring information at an instant.

QM goes out of its way to be clear that entanglement does not communicate any information. If someone achieves faster-than-light communication, it will be BIG NEWS! (Hopelessly inaccessible information, isn't information, it's imagination.)

Scott wrote:The EPR says that nature predetermines the stage (a hidden factor) going into entanglement that assures each component will be opposite…

Yes, but as I said, indeterminism occurs in single particles even without entanglement, so what EPR said is a moot point. Quantum spin is indeterminate, entangled or not.

Scott wrote:indeterminate at one end ONLY until one of the other is opened, NOT BOTH!

Nonsense, [url]entanglement[/url]is a shared quantum state.

"…the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance – instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole."

Scott wrote:'superposition' is also false about 'entanglement' because they assume that the literal reality of the particle's factors independently are in two simultaneous states that collapse to become ONE only by the mere effect of some distant observer!!

Another moot point! As I noted, the double slit experiment amply proves the superposition of dual paths taken by unobserved single particles! This superposition collapses if any "which path" observation is possible, a condition which can literally be turned on & off at will, experimentally. (By simply obstructing one of the paths.)

Scott wrote:THIS is the spooky…

Yes, quite. Quantum entanglement is indeed fascinating, an opinion shared by millions.

Scott wrote:If a coin has two possibilities, nature predetermines the outcome of the toss and doesn't make both possibilities true until you observe them.

Macro objects, such as coins (and cats), are poor representations of point particles. The essential difference relates to scale, but not merely because of size. It's that macro objects are too connected to the world by their accumulated fields. They are never in a state of not being observed because of gravity, EM radiation, collisions with atoms in an imperfect vacuum, etc. Thus, macro objects are always in a "collapsed state."

Scott wrote:In the Monty Hall problem, you want two distinct dimensions to be true simultaneously, the sequential set of events AND the simultaneous events in one game. These are two different KINDS of probability. The simultaneous event is 1/2 going in and 1 going out. The collective sequential ones are 1/2 for the first, 2/2 for the second, then 2/3 for the third IF "FAIR". But because this isn't the case, it requires repeating it until the average of equal balanced weights turn into the same as treating each possibility equal. But then it is no longer 'random'.

I didn't find any of this in the Wikipedia article.

Scott wrote:Where the two are the same OR the two are different, are not possible.

Fermions, such as electrons always have spin magnitude = ½. A pair entangled as "total spin zero" will always collapse to opposite + & - spin directions. A pair entangled as ""total spin one" will always collapse to identical spin directions (++ or - - ).

Scott wrote:The Copenhagen interpretation is literally saying that if you STOP one clock to observe it somewhere in the universe, that it also 'STOPS' the other…

Not quite. Stopping would be a spooky action at a distance! Just to be clear, particles have no existence apart from spin. They can't stop. (Mutual spin cancellation means annihilation.) To be correct substitute "measure" for "STOP".

Scott wrote:It says that if you measured the position of a bullet being shot in one direction, the effect of measuring that bullet effects the other …You just only do one KIND of measure at the other and it instantaneously informs you of the other. The problem is that the thought experiment should still 'fail' if only because of the bullet example.

Momentum is conserved. Knowing the momentum of a system before the pair separation and the momentum of either particle after separation, gives you the momentum of the other, regardless of separation. This holds for all conserved quantities.

Scott wrote:I can assure you I'm the correct one on this … THAT is how nature operates.

Now who's pretending to be God (or is that Mother Nature)?

Active Member

Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

Macro objects, such as coins (and cats), are poor representations of point particles. The essential difference relates to scale, but not merely because of size. It's that macro objects are too connected to the world by their accumulated fields. They are never in a state of not being observed because of gravity, EM radiation, collisions with atoms in an imperfect vacuum, etc. Thus, macro objects are always in a "collapsed state."

Many people have trouble with the particular meaning of "observed" that is used in QM. So many headaches result. Should we lock this? Seems like you've done all that can be done to advance the understanding of how the MHP is not analogous to Bell's theorem. And of entanglement.

Braininvat
Resident Member

Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Bell's Inequality error...

Faradave » December 13th, 2016, 10:52 am wrote:
Scott wrote:HOW is the Monty Hall puzzle NOT related [to spin correlations of QM]?
… the host [Monty] must pick WHERE the prize will be

Monty's doors are classical, each having a definite state, a particular value (prize or none).

In QM, if you find a quantum spin projection "UP" on an electron’s z-axis (with a Stern-Gerlach device), it will remain so as many times as you recheck it. However, if you subsequently measure spin on the x-axis, then recheck the z-axis, there is only a 50% chance it will again be "UP". This is an established fact. Unlike Monty's prize, quantum spin has indeterminate sign, prior to measurement.

If you are assuming that one particle can be remeasured as reopening the doors in Brian Greenes' example, this is wrong. Each electron does not go back to be retested! IF one electron goes through, it either goes UP or DOWN but THAT particular electron doesn't get remeasured again. When a stream of electrons go through the magnets, you get a collection of both ups and downs that average 1/2 of each.

As to what is 'classic', this just refers to the continuity versus discrete measures. For both these experiments, they are discrete. An electron goes up to the TOP or to the BOTTOM without varying degrees (as a LINE from top to bottom for magnetized pieces). The Monty Hall game is also 'discrete'. It doesn't have a car that is partially in one door and partially in another.

See Two minute example of the device in action.

We seem to be talking past each other. As I'm unwilling to equate Bell's theorem to the Monty Hall problem or that the latter is wrongly evaluated, you can save time by skipping the rest.

Scott wrote:Then what do you think the fuss with Einstein was all about? Why was the EPR paradox proposed at all? Why was Bell's addition of math being used by experimenters to overthrow the EPR as being wrong?

Like you, Einstein adhered to a strictly determinist world view. EPR didn't acknowledge indeterminate spin, particularly the entangled variety.

No, it accepted the entanglement but without spooky action at a distance through a 'causal original connection' (the 'hidden' determinate factor). A 'hidden' factor is if I put a left shoe in the mail and send that to you before you open it. It doesn't turn into its complement (the right shoe) back and forth until you open it. It remains a left shoe because that is how it originated determinately from. The 'indeterminate' disagreement was to whether nature was itself determinate, not our human inability to determine until we open the box. That doesn't break any speed laws. Our conscious sensation of being aware of multiple things at once is 'entanglement'. But if you disconnect the links between the active parts, they lack a common means to meet in phase because the hidden factor is the cut links. (I see there is a discussion on this recently)

Electron spin is either up or down without being in between because they move either move north or south in the direction of their poles which is like maintaining a strict head or tails orientation when as they travel dependent on how they start.

If it were 'weird', when EACH electron went through, it should hit both the top AND bottom simultaneously as though it split. This was the perceptive assumption of the interference pattern of the slit experiment. They falsely assume that when you shoot one particle at a time, it actually splits into all paths and the interference pattern is created by this magical state just before it hits the wall and becomes only ONE spot. They figured this because even when sending out individual particles (photons or electrons), they still create the COLLECTIVE pattern. To them, they think it is weird because they only assume that the bright spot on the wall that the electron hits individually are due to the particle going in only ONE slit. It is actually spread out but only concentrated at the point. It interferes with itself, not with all those possibilities that disappear at the last moment.

Scott wrote:You are taking a false and confusing assumption that this was NOT about the weirdness and which is a specific interpretation THAT spooky action at a distance is occurring.

It’s not an "action", it’s a change in state. If you're on Mars and the lottery ticket you left on earth hits the jackpot, your status changes to "millionaire" instantly, regardless of distance. If you don't believe me, just ask the IRS, which will withhold tax, before you even get the check!

NO, quantum weirdness is if I buy ONE ticket, go to Mars with it HIDDEN (unknown by the lotto drawers), and the draw MATCHES my number BEFORE I AM ABLE TO EVEN COMMUNICATE TO THEM, as if they could instantaneously 'know' what ticket I have. It is a kind of mind reading at a distance. Now imagine this occurs constantly. The QM weirdness is stating that the lotto balls are drawing ALL numbers until I look at my ticket or they draw it by chance where I we deem it determinate locally.

This girl gives a very good explanation in two videos: Is Quantum Mechanics true? Bell's Theorem Explained and Proof of Bell's Theorem

Scott wrote:You are wrong that the experiments are NOT about transferring information at an instant.

QM goes out of its way to be clear that entanglement does not communicate any information. If someone achieves faster-than-light communication, it will be BIG NEWS! (Hopelessly inaccessible information, isn't information, it's imagination.)

There is TWO kinds of 'information' being confused by you. The one is between the particles themselves; the other is about whether we can USE that to communicate. The first they are asserting true but the second is false because you can't IMPOSE on what one of the particles will BE by our will. THAT is already understood to be impossible. I can't MAKE an entangles state and then FORCE the spin I want at one end to be an up so that my friend at the other end would infer this by seeing down. The 'cause' of the entanglement is midway between the two ends. The 'communication' refers to the nature of the discovery of reality at one end to CAUSE the one at the other to be in sync with it. It's saying that if someone interfered in the middle of one side link, it affects the reality of the other even without communicating that at the speed of light that it has been cut.

Scott wrote:The EPR says that nature predetermines the stage (a hidden factor) going into entanglement that assures each component will be opposite…

Yes, but as I said, indeterminism occurs in single particles even without entanglement, so what EPR said is a moot point. Quantum spin is indeterminate, entangled or not.

Your confusing the SUBJECT of determinism: We unfortunately use the word "determinate" to refer to both (a) the HUMAN incapacity to know something because there are multiple OUTCOMES, and (b) to the state of reality itself (Nature or some 'God's magical capacity) to know. If I have a road that splits off at an intersection into five different directions but meet back up at one common place, QM is saying that I take all different roads IN THE SAME UNIVERSE but only when someone else observes me at the end, does nature bias it to collapse into one as though nature tossed a dice just at the last point. Then all the other options just disappear.

Scott wrote:indeterminate at one end ONLY until one of the other is opened, NOT BOTH!

Nonsense, [url]entanglement[/url]is a shared quantum state.

"…the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance – instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole."

See, unless you even understand the reality of the problem, your assuming the wrong thing. Entanglement is both interpretations. That is the state in the middle that is KNOWN to get split off as two pairs of complements go in direct opposite ways. I gave a multiple set of possibilities above as 5 co-possibilities (complement usually only refers to literally two), that shows this. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts ALL states exist INDEPENDENTLY until it is observed.

As an example, I have an identical twin. We share the same genetics and so are 'entangled' at the point we were conceived and why we share identical DNA. But while our brain cells are also identical in kind, we can't read each other's minds because what occurs to me AFTER we separate is INDEPENDENT of his. IF we were also in the QM state of superposition, what I think will immediately be known to my twin regardless of how far apart we are!! That's the "spooky action at a distance"!

Scott wrote:'superposition' is also false about 'entanglement' because they assume that the literal reality of the particle's factors independently are in two simultaneous states that collapse to become ONE only by the mere effect of some distant observer!!

Another moot point! As I noted, the double slit experiment amply proves the superposition of dual paths taken by unobserved single particles! This superposition collapses if any "which path" observation is possible, a condition which can literally be turned on & off at will, experimentally. (By simply obstructing one of the paths.)

I just mentioned this above but you should know that the original light-slit experiments were done by Young in the early 1800s. As such, while the effect was known, this did nothing to SPEAK for what was occurring. Only in the 1920s, when the Uncertainty principle came out did these conflicting interpretations arise.

AND, I've done my own experiment with laser light. It bends around any edges just as Einstein's point on light near massive gravity. When a second slit is open, the particle extends to BOTH holes and interferes with itself. At least this is one example of an explanation that doesn't require assuming anything weird. Instead of having ONE single particle like a solid, OR a background wave, think of this as a spot of water being shot at the two open holes. They would still act as a wave AND a particle but is not the single BALL-LIKE nor magical WAVES EVERYWHERE idea. The 'spot' or volume of moving water is like a sprinkler with a quantized size of droplet.

And IF I had the exact apparatus, I could possibly prove this by simply adding a tiny wall between the two slits. If long enough, even if the light can hit both slits, the very wall would create a different KIND of interference pattern due to the length of the matter between them.

Scott wrote:THIS is the spooky…

Yes, quite. Quantum entanglement is indeed fascinating, an opinion shared by millions.

Superposition is weird IF 'true' in entangled particles. Being at a million places at all times is an example of "superposition". While it CAN be 'true' of distinct worlds, it cannot be of one. The Bell experiment, IF valid, would have at least shown that a multi-world view was possible. But it would NOT be 'superposition' in the exact same world, just a set of distinct worlds that grant ALL possibilities, ANOTHER way of the confusion of the Monty Hall problem. A single event only exhausts all possibilities if in distinct worlds AND the outcome is 'fair'. If nature were sincerely 'random', each incident would average 1/2 all the time because it doesn't give EQUAL weights to all possibilities.

I can't respond to the rest because my answers are implicit in the above thus far.

I AM curious to here what you have to say about me explaining how Nature treats randomness though.

And you mention something about not seeing this covered in the Wikipedia page on the problem. I believe it had drawn mention of this but the writer of that isn't the only source. I figured my own out independently but know that many mathematicians disagreed based on interpretation within Statistics itself. But the topic of Randomness might cover this as this relates to computing or information theory.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

It remains a left shoe because that is how it originated determinately from.

But if it is a bi-dimensional shoe, you'll send only two "sides" of that "surface" shoe, and one side will be the mirror picture of the other.

I AM curious to here what you have to say about me explaining how Nature treats randomness though.

If I may... I'd say that "nature" tries every possibilities each "present" times. It then eliminates "non viable" possibilities. For example, that's what it did with quarks Top, Bottom, etc to keep just Up and Down quarks to continue its évolution.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

I found that there is a theory called Bohmian-mechanics or Pilot-wave theory which is similar to my arguments. SEE the same girl's videos I recommended above at: Bohmian Mechanics (YouTube). It's 7 minutes long.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Yes. In addition to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (Bohr's baby), which is most popular, there is Bohm's interpretation which allows faster-than-light communication (Einstein would not have approved) and the Many Worlds (multiverse) view. The latter two are distant but noteworthy rivals of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Interestingly, none of the above refute Bell's Theorem! Instead of local determinism (or "hidden variables") which Bell's Theorem is considered to have eliminated, they rely on non-locality. Bohm's piolet wave is not restricted by speed limit [b]c[b] and so effectively acts non-locally. Many Worlds is so non-local that it splits possible outcomes into their own universes. I find each of these excessive but they have respectable adherents. Enjoy!

Active Member

Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
 Scruffy Nerf Herder liked this post

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

Faradave » December 13th, 2016, 11:03 pm wrote:Yes. In addition to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (Bohr's baby), which is most popular, there is Bohm's interpretation which allows faster-than-light communication (Einstein would not have approved) and the Many Worlds (multiverse) view. The latter two are distant but noteworthy rivals of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Interestingly, none of the above refute Bell's Theorem! Instead of local determinism (or "hidden variables") which Bell's Theorem is considered to have eliminated, they rely on non-locality. Bohm's piolet wave is not restricted by speed limit [b]c[b] and so effectively acts non-locally. Many Worlds is so non-local that it splits possible outcomes into their own universes. I find each of these excessive but they have respectable adherents. Enjoy!

I didn't say I supported Bohm's whole theory. I just mentioned it for noticing that SOME of what I've interpreted HAS been rational. I get the impression you think that if I don't stand for the present paradigm that I've got to be missing something intellectual. That's not the case and that is an example.

As to the Bell's theorem above, I HAVE proven that the case for the experiments to test the validity of "superposition" is faulty based on Nature itself to prove this. So it is up to you to justify HOW you think that Nature's at fault and 'weird' but not your FAITH in the calculator. If this is the kind of intellectual reasoning being used, then no matter what you CHOOSE to be true, you can have your cake and eat it too.

(A) If Theory X is 'supported' by an interpretation that CONFIRMS it, then it must be true.

(B) If Theory X is 'unsupported' or even CONTRADICTORY, find an interpretation that suggests Nature itself is at fault. ....a "God works in mysterious ways" kind of interpretation.

Either way, the logic proves that there is something very wrong. I used the comparison between the Bell's and Monty Hall problem because the discrepancy between supporting the 2/3 solution is being assumed as the valid way to use to show that Nature is 'weird' for selecting 1/2. And this is about your misunderstanding of Randomness versus Fairness, not mine.

Nature is NOT 'weird'. And if "superposition" is maintained, I still demand how one can prove how a LACK of determination of nature MEANS that nature is itself unbound to LOCAL reality's limitations. It's sensible to interpret that if your calculator is flashing between 1 and 0 that something locally is problematic with the calculator. It is an error to assume that the 'error' itself is intentional proof that some magical being is causing it. The Copenhagen interpretation is POSITING a DETERMINATE position that what seems unable to be determined is a proof of NEGATING DETERMINATION by Nature itself and NOT of some ERROR of human interpretation.

It's irreconcilable anti-intellectualism. If 'nature' is indeterminate, we TOO are indeterminate being subject TO nature. Who are WE to tell nature is wrong as though WE are the Gods over it?

Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Bell's Theorem error?

Scott wrote:As to the Bell's theorem above, I HAVE proven that the case for the experiments to test the validity of "superposition" is faulty…

I disagree. Bell's theorem demonstrates to complementarity at a distance, referred to as "entanglement". Superposition, while complementary, is inherent to the spin projections of single particles (i.e. locally). Measuring one spin axis, puts all others in superposition, with demonstrable probabilities. This is irrefutable!

And in Bohmian mechanics, though the particle location is considered determinate, its pilot wave invokes path superposition through an interferometer.

Scott wrote:So it is up to you to justify HOW you think that Nature's at fault and 'weird'

I find nature to be quite clear and simple , just one level deeper than (but consistent with) the Copenhagen interpretation. This utilizes projections, from the class of phenomena for which Relativity allows faster-than-light progression (but not communication). Interestingly, this may also be construed as a pilot wave mechanism.

I've checked randomness and fairness and find no reason to alter my position.

Scott wrote:And if "superposition" is maintained, I still demand how one can prove how a LACK of determination of nature MEANS that nature is itself unbound to LOCAL reality's limitations.

You can skip this. Your notion of "LOCAL" is archaic, considering only 3D locality at a particular time (Δt = Δr = 0,Δr2 = Δx2 + Δy2 + Δz2). But in 4D, "locality" is much broader, corresponding to a particle's light cones (i.e. for all cases of Δt = Δr).

Scott wrote:If 'nature' is indeterminate, we TOO are indeterminate...

Some might find this a convenient basis for free will. In general, macro objects are too observable to be uncollapsed (in superposition). However, Anton Zeilinger has demonstrated self-interference (path superposition) with molecules as large as Bucky Balls (C60)!

A thread's initiator controls the thread title. Posters control post titles. Thus, post titles are editable. For long threads with many participants, unique post titles can help readers sort out which post is being replied to.

Further, you chose a very leading thread title, "Bell's Theorem error…". As I oppose that notion, it's misleading to retain the default thread title for my posts. A more objective thread title would have been, "Is Bell's Theorem in error?". But even then, I admit a strong tendency to title my posts according to their individual themes. Allowing for occasional mild kidding, no offence is intended.

Active Member

Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Bell's Theorem error?

Faradave » December 14th, 2016, 1:54 pm wrote:
Scott wrote:As to the Bell's theorem above, I HAVE proven that the case for the experiments to test the validity of "superposition" is faulty…

I disagree. Bell's theorem demonstrates to complementarity at a distance, referred to as "entanglement". Superposition, while complementary, is inherent to the spin projections of single particles (i.e. locally). Measuring one spin axis, puts all others in superposition, with demonstrable probabilities. This is irrefutable!

And in Bohmian mechanics, though the particle location is considered determinate, its pilot wave invokes path superposition through an interferometer.

No offense, Faradave, but you don't even understand the actual argument as is clear above. Einstein and company already KNEW that complementary particles should be determinable upon discovery because the nature of entanglement is NOT of a 'superposition'. It has the logical link that they were SENT as original complements. But the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that a "superposition" THROUGH SPACE exists to the pair such that they are like one SOLID LINK regardless of how far in space apart they are. As such, they believed that if you affect one side of it, you affect the other instantaneously.

If you can't understand this much, you don't know what you're talking about. I understand this correctly already according to the physicists in QM themselves. I sent you a link and you can check out ALL the videos out there to see they all hold the same understanding. They also ALL know that the EPR was about showing that an instantaneous transfer of information (a superposition of the entanglement) was NOT real.

Do you still insist that this isn't even correct? I can't prove to you anything when you don't think that this was even about "superposition". The "entanglement" implies that superposition is the state of 'entangled' particles, not just to their original creation by the Copenhagen interpretation. The EPR is stating that a kind of 'entanglement' is only superficial based upon their initial creation, its 'hidden' factor.

Einstein's definition of what is 'random' would be as mine: that if something is random, it is not 'fair' by weight to each possibility. If it was, then the 'odds' would be equally distributed AT AN INSTANT in time. You don't get both particles acting as ONE. And the same extends to the infinity of the superpositions of the slit experiment assumption.

While Bohr possibly suggested a multi-verse, this is still irrelevant because you don't need to. The LACK of knowledge of our observations isn't sufficient to assume anything without knowing what precisely the particles actually ARE.

Scott wrote:So it is up to you to justify HOW you think that Nature's at fault and 'weird'

I find nature to be quite clear and simple , just one level deeper than (but consistent with) the Copenhagen interpretation. This utilizes projections, from the class of phenomena for which Relativity allows faster-than-light progression (but not communication). Interestingly, this may also be construed as a pilot wave mechanism.

It appears that the 'pilot' wave is interpreted as some strictly linear wave or one that is linear AND possibly spinning in an axis IN its direction of movement. I propose a three-dimensional wave as a spiral STRING opened at both ends and 'fed' from its center, opposite to the apparent assumption of a galaxy to be assumed as being formed by gravity TOWARDS its center. The linear forms as some 'pilot' wave may be assumed and why this would not likely be possible or lead to some other possible contradictions. All that matters though is that there are other possible forms without us knowing precisely yet.

I've checked randomness and fairness and find no reason to alter my position.

No justification other than that you refuse to understand nor accept even if you do?

Scott wrote:And if "superposition" is maintained, I still demand how one can prove how a LACK of determination of nature MEANS that nature is itself unbound to LOCAL reality's limitations.

You can skip this. Your notion of "LOCAL" is archaic, considering only 3D locality at a particular time (Δt = Δr = 0,Δr2 = Δx2 + Δy2 + Δz2). But in 4D, "locality" is much broader, corresponding to a particle's light cones (i.e. for all cases of Δt = Δr).
"Local" is the description of EACH end's place of measurement. The 'local' cause of disturbance of measuring is what is ALL that the EPR accepts, not "spooky action at a distance" (non-local instantaneous communications). I haven't a clue what else you are speaking of and it is irrelevant.

Scott wrote:If 'nature' is indeterminate, we TOO are indeterminate...

Some might find this a convenient basis for free will. In general, macro objects are too observable to be uncollapsed (in superposition). However, Anton Zeilinger has demonstrated self-interference (path superposition) with molecules as large as Bucky Balls (C60)!

If 'free will' is what some fear for accepting reality, then the justification to support this assumption is about politics, not science.

Self-interference is not a problem in the least. Think of what a hurricane might do if it was blocked by some giant wall with two slits in it. The outer branches would refract at the openings. The 'center' is its gravitational point....a wave and a particle -like entity.

On the title thing, it appears as a slight when you relabel it as it is suggestive of your emotional attitude towards me. And if I post without noticing, my posts appear to be of your threads, not my own. Isn't this like hashtaging? It should be disabled. But I'll be more cautious to notice if you insist.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Bell-icose

Scott wrote:Einstein and company already KNEW that complementary particles should be determinable upon discovery because the nature of entanglement is NOT of a 'superposition'. It has the logical link that they were SENT as original complements.

This was not a matter of knowledge but debate, which went unsettled for years. Otherwise Bell's theorem would have been considered unremarkable.

Scott wrote:…the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that a "superposition" THROUGH SPACE exists to the pair such that they are like one SOLID LINK regardless of how far in space apart they are. As such, they believed that if you affect one side of it, you affect the other instantaneously.

Fair enough. But the "link" does not allow the transmission of matter or energy (restricted by speed limit c). Further, since information has no existence apart from matter or energy, entanglement cannot covey information from one particle to the other. The effect you refer to is a change in quantum state (from entangled to separate). This is instantaneous in the same way the orbital transition of an electron (also a change in quantum state) is instantaneous. Deny one, you deny them all.

Scott wrote:…you don't know what you're talking about. … I understand this correctly already…the physicists in QM themselves… ALL know that the EPR was about showing that an instantaneous transfer of information (a superposition of the entanglement) was NOT real.

The EPR paper was a challenge to which Bohr admirably responded (with a paper of the same title*). The EPR paper signaled a debate not a conclusion. To this day, QM does not purport faster-than-light communication. A change in (i.e. "update" of) quantum state is NOT a communication.

*"Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?"
Note the "?". Einstein was bold without being arrogant. There's a difference.

Scott wrote:…you don't think that this was even about "superposition"

Ridiculous! Entanglement certainly involves superposition but it is not the only kind of superposition. That should have been obvious the definition of entanglement I provided above, which clearly describes a superposition:

"…the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance – instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole."

Scott wrote:Think of what a hurricane might do if it was blocked by some giant wall with two slits in it.

Wherever did you come up with that interesting idea?

Scott wrote:[4D locality] I haven't a clue what else you are speaking of and it is irrelevant.

For a guy who keeps throwing Einstein's name around, you seem quite unfamiliar with Relativity or QM. The "locality" you refer to is merely classical, referring only to adjacency in space. With the advent of spacetime, the notion should be expanded to include adjacency with respect to time as well (i.e. spacetime interval adjacency). After all, being a determinist, you are now adjacent to yourself (both a moment ago and in the future).

Scott wrote:when you relabel [post titles] it is suggestive of your emotional attitude towards me

My attitude toward you is that if you keep learning physics, in a year or so, you may well have something interesting to say.

I've titled nearly all my posts here for years. Nothing personal about it.

Active Member

Posts: 1605
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

If we ban personal headings on posts, then we would lose Faradave's amusing puns, like "Bell-icose." Some levity is necessary in the most esoteric discussions.

Levity, as you may know, is the strongest force opposing gravity.

Braininvat
Resident Member

Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Bell-igerant?

Faradave » December 16th, 2016, 12:24 pm wrote:
Scott wrote:Einstein and company already KNEW that complementary particles should be determinable upon discovery because the nature of entanglement is NOT of a 'superposition'. It has the logical link that they were SENT as original complements.

This was not a matter of knowledge but debate, which went unsettled for years. Otherwise Bell's theorem would have been considered unremarkable.

NO, the debate was about whether superposition exists or not. The confusion came about because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was claimed to be about reality itself to hold ALL the 'probable' states in an indeterminate simultaneous relationship until someone or thing 'observes' it. By contrast, Einstein and others ACCEPTED the principle if it ONLY was interpreted to be about our human limitations to MEASUREMENT.

The difference, which you don't get, is that it is saying that given a numerical probability, we use this only to aid us in prediction but does not mean that nature itself HAS all POSSIBILITIES in equal event spaces in ONE simultaneous state (time nor position)! This is the same kind of mistake as most others err in the Monty hall problem that the solution in unique games is 1/2, and not 2/3 as though EACH probability was EQUALLY occurring by NATURE itself.

When we flip a coin, to ourselves, the practical interpretation of asserting that 1/2 will be heads, is a state of comparing the possibilities involved WITHOUT concerning the balance that Nature would impose.

(1 possibility)/(2 possibilities total) is the comparison of possible SPACE events. At this point the number 1/2 is only a probability if it is to imply an IDEAL human representation of the lack of KNOWLEDGE of what will be a heads up if we assume multiple plays and average them out. That is, a probability is a human device used to predict something when we have not direct ACCESS to NATURE by some PRACTICAL means. But it does NOT mean that Nature actually pauses to take both possibilities into some equal consideration in one single event. In other words, Nature is still able to determine specifically ONE exact result in one toss regardless of our own lack of knowledge. It is NOT is what is labeled a 'superposition' of having both possibilities.

The ONLY way that you CAN have both possibilities is if you have a distinctly separate world where EACH has one of heads and the other a tails. While this is alright, we have no capacity to know THAT there is another world. The Copenhagen interpretation is literally asserting MORE than this though. They are asserting that Nature (some God's eye reality) actually holds a kind of mystical multi-world con-temporary positions/states IN OUR PRESENT WORLD but by some lottery upon an observation, it collapses into only one of those possibilities.

It's actually one of many impositions of religion into science. This particular type is the way one might say in this kind of dialogue about God's own mysterious way to exist in a superposition of states:

Imagine a conversation between a father and son about God's own entangled state of being invisibly beside us holding an indeterminate state of 'knowledge'. The 'superposition' is the state of God's power he grants to human 'free will' to interpret GOOD versus BAD based upon their own observations:

Father: "God is sitting right beside you right now. You can't see him but the proof that he's there is to the WAY he makes things work for you in good times."

Son: "But why doesn't he ALWAYS make things good if he's invisibly sitting next to me?"

Father: "Because NOT EVEN HE can determine the outcome. He only knows which of the two occur and when you OBSERVE your condition, HOW you 'observe' it DETERMINES whether it is 'good' or not. That is his gift of free will."

Son: "So if I interpret what I observe as 'bad' or 'good', the way I default to seeing it naturally makes it so?"

Father: "Yes, This is God's love expressing itself in light of your free will."

Son: "But why should God not 'know' what will occur and then try to always make it good? Isn't he determined to BE 'good', as his namesake?"

Father: "Why should WE be the ones to tell God how HE should behave? He works in mysterious ways."

Scott wrote:…the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that a "superposition" THROUGH SPACE exists to the pair such that they are like one SOLID LINK regardless of how far in space apart they are. As such, they believed that if you affect one side of it, you affect the other instantaneously.

Fair enough. But the "link" does not allow the transmission of matter or energy (restricted by speed limit c).

This is YOUR error. The Copenhagen interpretation is asserting that a superposition of states exists in an entangled state as having multiple realities existing at once IN our own space but 'invisible' ...like that a religious person might interpret about God's power to know your free willed outcomes. God would act as the 'indeterminate' reality coexisting simultaneously in 'entanglement' with our reality but only lets us SEE his results by our own power to 'observe' as though God allows both to be true but cannot determine this himself. It's like he can wipe his hands free of being blamed for DETERMINING which outcome occurs as he allows both. But when you 'observe' the result, the state of entanglement collapses EVERYWHERE it holds true to be what one observes at one aspect of the observation.

"Entanglement" HAS the property of being in a 'superposition', according to the Copenhagen interpretation as though all possible worlds coexist at once in our particular world.

My example earlier of having two bullets being shot simultaneously in opposite directions IS an excellent example of the Copenhagen interpretation:

The 'entanglement' they imply is NOT about their initial state of coinciding complementary values. If it WAS, then the initial state is the HIDDEN factor that Einstein believed. When one bullet is stopped going by whatever factor occurs in the other bullet, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the same REALITY occurs at the other by 'collapsing' to either one of the bullets that gets disrupted (observed) first. This is instantaneous transfer of information and causation that affects the reality of the other. And this is the kind of weirdness that QM is stating.

Some DO try to weasel out of this afterwards in a double speak similar to the conversation of father and son above. It makes them have their cake and eat it too. And you even fall ON the side of Einstein here but think it is something different. Einstein's view (and mine here) is that while both bullets can be predicted to be somewhere based on merely observing one of them, it does not mean that your prediction is certain to be true by nature because something could have interfered with the other bullet and so doesn't HAVE the complementary nature of position or velocity. Einstein is arguing the NON-weird argument, not the Copenhagen one. So stop imposing your belief that the Copenhagen interpretation is the one that's being 'normal' and un-weird. It is the one that asserts that light in the slit experiments is taking ALL possible simultaneous paths (invisibly) but become only one randomly when it hits the screen that is 'weird'. That is 'superposition'.

Scott wrote:…you don't know what you're talking about. … I understand this correctly already…the physicists in QM themselves… ALL know that the EPR was about showing that an instantaneous transfer of information (a superposition of the entanglement) was NOT real.

The EPR paper was a challenge to which Bohr admirably responded (with a paper of the same title*). The EPR paper signaled a debate not a conclusion. To this day, QM does not purport faster-than-light communication. A change in (i.e. "update" of) quantum state is NOT a communication.

I already agree with this. You are mistaken that this IS what is being debated though. The instantaneous communication BY nature does NOT mean that we can USE this to send messages because we cannot CONTROL WHAT state of some particle will be, only OBSERVE it after nature has created it. Because we are discussing quantum sized particles, we cannot demand THAT an 'up spin' is GOING to be assigned prior to observing it. You can't, for instance, assign 'up spin' as a '0' and down spin as a '1' and then FORCE the particle to BE what we want because the concept is about observing states not imposing them.

Communications by humans even in QM is limited to the speed of light.

Scott wrote:…you don't think that this was even about "superposition"

Ridiculous! Entanglement certainly involves superposition but it is not the only kind of superposition. That should have been obvious the definition of entanglement I provided above, which clearly describes a superposition:

"…the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance – instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole."

You falsely interpret this definition somehow. It clearly asserts that "a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole." They assert that ANY superposition is such that the quantum state of each particle is NOT independent, thus IS dependent, as the bullet example I gave you. So if someone stops one bullet (a kind of 'observation'), then the other bullet acts as though it were stopped too (same determinate state) and would fall out of the sky as though it knows its twin's behavior instantaneously. The entanglement requires they fall out of the sky collectively upon one 'observing' the other. The 'stopping' of the bullet is the act of observing in my example.

Scott wrote:Think of what a hurricane might do if it was blocked by some giant wall with two slits in it.

Wherever did you come up with that interesting idea?

I hope that you aren't insinuating that I had stolen some idea of yours. I HAD actually written the concept of spirals in my thread on my theory that the administrators removed here: A taste of my theory. But I've written it online in various forums elsewhere long before here. I hadn't read into the Randomness thread and don't even see from your links what you're referring to. Please state more clearly WHAT you are asserting here.

My own theory is an "open-string" theory requiring spirals. The 'hurricane' example is to relate this as one example. I also learned that Bohm's own 'pilot wave' theory was just used similarly as a counter-example to show THAT you can have another reasonable explanation. My own example is exactly this too but using the 'wave' as the arms of the spiral being 'piloted' (in Bohm's terms) through space as a whole. It helps illustrate better too how you can have a 'center of mass' that gives it a particle-like behavior.

If only one giant slit existed, the hurricane would hit at some unique spot behind that. But if you have two, one part of the spiral-hurricane is bound to go through one interfere with itself before they hit some imaginary wall.

Scott wrote:[4D locality] I haven't a clue what else you are speaking of and it is irrelevant.

For a guy who keeps throwing Einstein's name around, you seem quite unfamiliar with Relativity or QM. The "locality" you refer to is merely classical, referring only to adjacency in space. With the advent of spacetime, the notion should be expanded to include adjacency with respect to time as well (i.e. spacetime interval adjacency). After all, being a determinist, you are now adjacent to yourself (both a moment ago and in the future).

And I can't tell the "[4D locality]" means by your context here. Is this your own interpretation of something I said? I certainly don't associate "locality" with "dimensions." "Locality" is the nature of some factor occurring close by rather than at some distance (proximity) by any dimension in context. That's it. Mine is exactly the same meaning from the Wikipedia page on "principle of locality" that states:
In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings.

On your accusation of my lack of wisdom on the physics discussed, I assure you I DO know what I'm talking about. If this was a reflective slight for my comment on your own knowledge of the issue, I don't broaden such to insult someone in more general terms. That is, I take care to treat things independently and so would not insult you for some holistic assumption of your knowledge of physics in general. I'm very specific here and am NOT insulting you when I assert your own misunderstanding of the issue. We are discussing one precise topic here, the interpretation of QM's weirdness. If you don't like my interpretation, its not a reflection of my background on this and certainly not on everything else related to physics.

I'm bothered by the means of people's colloquial use of the term, "Classical", too. The term when used in physics is to the PRESENT assumption of validity of QM's Copenhagen interpretation as a default after-the-fact (post hoc). But it treats the arguments against the 'weirdness' of QM as not requiring it by default OF the "spooky action at a distance" which is what is being questioned here. The argument here is to argue that there ARE rational non-weird explanations without imposing a magical superposition of states.

Scott wrote:when you relabel [post titles] it is suggestive of your emotional attitude towards me

My attitude toward you is that if you keep learning physics, in a year or so, you may well have something interesting to say.

I've titled nearly all my posts here for years. Nothing personal about it.

In other word, you just insulted me by trivializing my logic over your supposed wiser one.?? I already have perfect confidence in what I've said here and am not worried about your personal emotional view of me. I WILL now have to pay attention to ALL posts for your titles. But it DOES indicate emotional biases and is a form of rhetorical, not logical, predispositions. It's called "innuendo". [Thus my own reflective title as an example above to your nature. (I don't actually judge you belligerent....(yet?). It is just an example.)]

[quote]An innuendo is a hint, insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a denigrating or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. [Innuendo-Wikipedia]
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

Braininvat » December 16th, 2016, 12:47 pm wrote:If we ban personal headings on posts, then we would lose Faradave's amusing puns, like "Bell-icose." Some levity is necessary in the most esoteric discussions.

Levity, as you may know, is the strongest force opposing gravity.

Humor at ones' own expense is fine with me. But not at another. I like humor but am more cautious to use it as it presents problems in context of the listener's background.

I've rarely seen others use re-labeling. But where I have, it was used as 'off-topic' digression points or to 'tag' related but different topics. I'll have to look up phpBB's intent on this.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

### Re: Bell's Theorem error....

ERRATA: I see in a post above that it appears that the following was printed as my words when they were Faradave's:
We seem to be talking past each other. As I'm unwilling to equate Bell's theorem to the Monty Hall problem or that the latter is wrongly evaluated, you can save time by skipping the rest.

I can't re-edit and so it looks as though I'm being contradictory to my own view. The post is http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31902&p=312221#p312010 a few paragraphs in.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Previous