Einstein and "spooky actions"

[Mr Spinkles]

Some generous soul has posted all the excerpts from Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" which are relevant to our discussion (PDF): http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys270/Jenkins/Griffiths_EPR_BellInequality_Excerpt.pdf

For the purposes of our discussion no one needs to worry about the equations; the text itself covers everything we've been discussing just fine, including alternative points of view (different interpretations of QM, hidden variables and realism, the EPR paradox and nonlocality, etc.)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some generous soul has posted all the excerpts from Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" which are relevant to our discussion (PDF): http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys270/Jenkins/Griffiths_EPR_BellInequality_Excerpt.pdf

For the purposes of our discussion no one needs to worry about the equations; the text itself covers everything we've been discussing just fine, including alternative points of view (different interpretations of QM, hidden variables and realism, the EPR paradox and nonlocality, etc.)

Thank you. Despite the appeal to authority, that is extremely helpful: to the point without oversimplifying. I'd hand out frubals but alas I've used them all up for you at the moment so you'll have to suffer and somehow (I don't know how, but hope it is possible) survive without an additional one for now.

 

[zaybu]

Wait... does the absence of "nonlocality" in a book mean that "nonlocality" isn't in the book or that "nonlocality" isn't true? Because I'm pretty sure the former is more accurate, no?

More to the point, nonlocality is useless. In QFT, you'll learn path integral, renormalization, gauge invariance, spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs mechanism and Wilson loops, and none of these concepts require nonlocality. And these are the core of QFT, which is the core of the Standard Model. IOW, if you study QM, never heard of nonlocality, you'll be okay to undertake QFT.

 

[zaybu]

It's still the same logic in the form of advanced mathematics to cover a wider field of probability. In probability or potential it does exist in more than one place.

The wave function in QM is a vector in a Hilbert space. It is not an observable. Observables in QM are operators. Besides quantum logic, that is another distinction between QM and classical physics. It's only when you make a measurement, which will be the probabilty of finding the particle in a given state, that really matters. What is the reality before you took the measurement is anyone's guess, and has no bearing on the theory. You can speculate all you want, but it's just that, speculation.

 

[zaybu]

Third, books on QFT and the other numerous acronyms in quantumm physics do talk about "spooky action".

Oh yeah, well name me one, page number, and paragraph.

Fourth, textbooks are for people who are learning a subject. It's why students (whether undergrads or someone who just has their dissertation left) don't go out and buy 3 or 4 textbooks on the same exact topic.

Oh wow, that's a cute one. As a professor, I have more than 40 textbooks, and some of my colleagues, even more. Besides what's that got to do with an argument, which should stand on its own. In your case, with your constant appeal to authority, you behave more like a scholar rather than a scientist.

 

[zaybu]

I
My hypothesis is that you are mistaken at an elementary level on the physics--and yes, I read your posts with various wavefunctions. But it is unlikely to be productive for us to throw conflicting equations back and forth at each other. In general terms, I think you are mistaken that a nonreal+nonlocal (or even certain real+nonlocal) interpretation is "totally wrong", and I suspect you are also mistaken in your suggestion that a "nonreal+local" interpretation is compatible with experiment.

If I'm wrong, then you'll have to do better that just stating that. You'll need to show me where I'm wrong, how I'm wrong. Now in QFT, we deal with particles interacting at sub-nuclear level. We do encounter infinities, but these are dealt with processes like regularization ( which works ok in flat splace, but in curved space, you can't ignore that infinity), renormalization ( which is ok up to the Planck level). And when you try to insert gravity into the Lagrangian, you get terms that are non-renormalizable, and non-linear terms due to the fact that gravitons are themselves sources of gravity. As I've pointed out in a precedent post, none of those concerns in QFT involves non-locality.

So pardon me, if I say that the notion of non-locality to be quite useless.

A fair test of my hypothesis is whether or not you can cite credible materials (textbooks or journal articles) which show that at least some minority of serious physicists agree with your position. If you can't, my hypothesis explains why: because you've made a bunch of elementary mistakes and you don't realize it.

Stop behaving like a scholar. Appeal to authority has no place in discussing scientific theory.

 

[zaybu]

Some generous soul has posted all the excerpts from Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" which are relevant to our discussion (PDF): http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys270/Jenkins/Griffiths_EPR_BellInequality_Excerpt.pdf

For the purposes of our discussion no one needs to worry about the equations; the text itself covers everything we've been discussing just fine, including alternative points of view (different interpretations of QM, hidden variables and realism, the EPR paradox and nonlocality, etc.)

If you go through the derivation of Bell's theorem (at the end of the text), Bell uses only classical logic. That was one of his assumption.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh yeah, well name me one, page number, and paragraph.

Sure. You just tell me what you think Einstein meant by "spooky action", and I'll tell you where to find this discussed.

Oh wow, that's a cute one. As a professor,

You aren't a professor. You are a retired teacher from canada who has written some science fiction nobody has really heard of, but that did get some awful reviews. You've written reviews yourself on some physics books. If you would like me to take you through the comments you've made asking for help on physics problems, or your commentary on physics papers or even one of your son's descriptions of your letters to the Montreal Gazette, we can do that. Or you could stop lying.

I have more than 40 textbooks, and some of my colleagues, even more.

Just a little note for the next time you pretend to be who you aren't, real researchers with PhD's don't brag about having textbooks. The point of textbooks is for students. You want to note the research you've done, as anybody can buy textbooks.

Besides what's that got to do with an argument

Well for one, it's one more indication that you are a fraud. But more importantly, if you want to know what is going on in any field, you look at the research (or similar sources). Because at best textbooks can accurately represent the state of this research. Also, the entire point is you harping on and on about how there is no "spooky action" without ever defining what Einstein referred to when he said that.

As for "page and number":

They do use the term non-local, nonlocality, etc. That Weinberg book on QFT is the first of a 3-volume series. The one mentioned talks about non-local field theories in the context of the entire problem with QFT (we don't have a unified relativistic quantum theory everyone agrees one). On p. 33, before mentioning "several specific proposals were made for giving field theory a non-local structure", the author talks about the "uneasy pessimism" which resulted from what "seemed to indicate a gap in understanding of relativistic quantum field theory on the most fundamental level". And while it is true that the first volume doesn't mention non-locality, it also doesn't mention locality.

The problem is that QFT is an attempt to combine relativity and QM. However, the former is a local theory, and the latter is not. Should we be suprised, then, when a text on QFT doesn't talk a lot about nonlocality and has, therefore, almost no reason to mention Einstein's description of phenomenon of non-relativistic mechanics? No. I rarely come across Einstein's quip "is the moon there when you don't look at it", and I frequently come across "god does not play dice", but context is everything. If one is concentrating on a relativistic quantum theory, then one has enough issues without throwing in quips from Einstein or Feynman.

 

[zaybu]

As for "page and number":
They do use the term non-local, nonlocality, etc. That Weinberg book on QFT is the first of a 3-volume series. The one mentioned talks about non-local field theories in the context of the entire problem with QFT (we don't have a unified relativistic quantum theory everyone agrees one). On p. 33, before mentioning "several specific proposals were made for giving field theory a non-local structure", the author talks about the "uneasy pessimism" which resulted from what "seemed to indicate a gap in understanding of relativistic quantum field theory on the most fundamental level". And while it is true that the first volume doesn't mention non-locality, it also doesn't mention locality.

The quote is: "Several specific proposals were made for giving field theory a non-local structure. Some theorists began to suspect that the formalism of state-vectors and quantum fields should be replace by one based solely on observable quantities, such as the S-matrix introduced by John Archibald Wheeler in 1937 and Heisenberg in 1943, whose elements are the amplitudes for various scattering processes."

In goes on, several lines after, " In yet another direction, Wheeler And Richard Feynman in 1945 attempted to eliminate the electromagnetic field, deriving electromagnetic interactions in terms of an interaction at a distance.

Further down, " Perhaps the most radical modification of quantum mechanics suggested during this period was the introduction by Dirac of states of negative probability, as a means of canceling infinities in sums over states."

The concern as outlined by Weinberg is over the infinities that kept popping out of QFT, and not about non-locality. It is still the main concern as gravity when introduced into QFT gives you infinities that no one has been able to get rid of.

And as I've maintained in prior posts, A) non-locality is useless, 2) it is resolved once you accept that Bell's theorem presupposes classical logic. All it proves is that classical logic cannot describe a quantum system. Anything else is pure fantasy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In goes on, several lines after, " In yet another direction, Wheeler And Richard Feynman in 1945 attempted to eliminate the electromagnetic field, deriving electromagnetic interactions in terms of an interaction at a distance.

"action at a distaance". That sounds vaguely familiar.

Further down, " Perhaps the most radical modification of quantum mechanics suggested during this period was the introduction by Dirac of states of negative probability, as a means of canceling infinities in sums over states."

And then, immediately after, we find "This idea, of an 'indefinite metric' in Hilbert space, has also flourished in quantum field thoery, though not in the form originally suggested". And then continued with talk of infinities that hasn't really much to with nonlcality or the fact that you oontinue to claim you have some expertise here that makes you worth anybody's time.

Also, about this:

If I'm wrong, then you'll have to do better that just stating that. You'll need to show me where I'm wrong, how I'm wrong. Now in QFT, we deal with particles interacting at sub-nuclear level. ...none of those concerns in QFT involves non-locality.

So pardon me, if I say that the notion of non-locality to be quite useless.

1) You continue to lie, and claim that you are some expert instead of a retired self-published author whose knowledge of science is actually rather literally (science) fiction. Does this escape your attention? Do you think others can't pick it up?
2) About field theories and nonlocality. If you want to understand how field theories really do have to deal with (or at least try to deal with) nonlocality, read Nonlocal Continuum Field Theories by Eringen.

]
The concern as outlined by Weinberg is over the infinities that kept popping out of QFT, and not about non-locality. It is still the main concern as gravity when introduced into QFT gives you infinities that no one has been able to get rid of.

That simply isn't rue. But in fairness, considering the lies you've told about yourself, misreprenting things you don't understand isn't all that big of a deal.

 

[zaybu]

"action at a distaance". That sounds vaguely familiar.
And then, immediately after, we find "This idea, of an 'indefinite metric' in Hilbert space, has also flourished in quantum field thoery, though not in the form originally suggested". And then continued with talk of infinities that hasn't really much to with nonlcality or the fact that you oontinue to claim you have some expertise here that makes you worth anybody's time.
Also, about this:
1) You continue to lie, and claim that you are some expert instead of a retired self-published author whose knowledge of science is actually rather literally (science) fiction. Does this escape your attention? Do you think others can't pick it up?
2) About field theories and nonlocality. If you want to understand how field theories really do have to deal with (or at least try to deal with) nonlocality, read Nonlocal Continuum Field Theories by Eringen.
That simply isn't rue. But in fairness, considering the lies you've told about yourself, misreprenting things you don't understand isn't all that big of a deal.

All of your posts are personal attacks. So I will ignore them until you address the arguments as they are presented.

Here's one argument: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3315313-post47.html

Are you capable of discussing this without personal attack?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The quote is: "Several specific proposals were made for giving field theory a non-local structure. Some theorists began to suspect that the formalism of state-vectors and quantum fields should be replace by one based solely on observable quantities, such as the S-matrix introduced by John Archibald Wheeler in 1937 and Heisenberg in 1943, whose elements are the amplitudes for various scattering processes."

In goes on, several lines after, " In yet another direction, Wheeler And Richard Feynman in 1945 attempted to eliminate the electromagnetic field, deriving electromagnetic interactions in terms of an interaction at a distance.

Further down, " Perhaps the most radical modification of quantum mechanics suggested during this period was the introduction by Dirac of states of negative probability, as a means of canceling infinities in sums over states."

The concern as outlined by Weinberg is over the infinities that kept popping out of QFT, and not about non-locality. It is still the main concern as gravity when introduced into QFT gives you infinities that no one has been able to get rid of.

And as I've maintained in prior posts, A) non-locality is useless, 2) it is resolved once you accept that Bell's theorem presupposes classical logic. All it proves is that classical logic cannot describe a quantum system. Anything else is pure fantasy.

I've had enough. In the other thread, in order to show your expertise, you linked to your blog: strings of ides

The blog is also connected to your website:
Joseph Palazzo Homepage

It links to some of you book and their reception, as well as your reviews.

On this site, not only do you admit physics is your hobby, but how you "solved a certain equation- the Newman-Penrose in Relatiivity".

And a mere for years ago, here's you asking for solutions to an intro textbook.

But apparently once wasn't enough, so you had to ask a year later for help to understand one of the very physics textbooks you've been touting to establish your expertise. Your post: "fantastic books but I find the problems out of my reach. Is there a website that gives the solutions? Thanks."


By the way, this paper you critqued here, it was published.

As for your 40 textbooks, you've certainly acquired a lot just to learn QFT:
"I don't see the problem of "localizability". I have no idea from what this comes. It certainly not a topic in QFT. I have nine textbooks on my desk, and none even mention that concept. All particles are subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's just that fermions obey different statistics than bosons. The only time you will need to consider waves is when you are dealing with a large number of photons. In that case, the wave picture gives you adequate results. But when you deal with one on one: one photon with one electron, or two electrons exchanging a photon, then the particle picture is the only one that makes sense. Either that or you might as well throw Feynman's diagrams under the bus" (source for zaybu's quote)
Given the description there and elsewhre (including here) I don't think more textbooks are helping.

And as for you problems with series, we can find where you begin to misunderstand these here: "Very interesting... but now my head is spinning. Is this a math trick?"

(hint: no. It's just math).

Seriously, this is becoming ridiculous. You accuse others of relying on authority while you brag about textbooks you couldn't even figure out yourself?

 

[zaybu]

I've had enough.

.
.

So you can't answer post #51, you go right for personal attack.

Wow.

Well I tell you what the internet doesn't say. I earn A Master in 1969. Went teaching and raised a family. Then took a sabbatical leave to earn a PHD. Took an early retirement because I had cancer. Wrote sci-fi books not for the glory because I was sick, depressed, fighting for my life, and I need to take my mind off.

Now, if you continue this personal attack, I will report you to the authorities for bullying over the internet. I will find you out, and sue the hell out of you.

Do we understand each other?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you can't answer post #51, you go right for personal attack.

NOTE: please refrain from posting links which you have no clue what these articles asre talking about.

That you consider this difference between classical and quantum mechanics as a waste of times when it is at the core of QM speaks loudly of your incompetence in this matter.

No, if there is any troll, it is you as you are totally incompetent and can't deliver the proper answers. BTW, providing links that are beyond your comprehension will only fool the amateurs. The problem is I'm no amateur. I have a PHD in physics, plus 25 years of teaching that stuff. There's very little you can teach me. OTOH, I can teach you Gauge Theory, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, the Higgs Mechanism, Wilson Loop, Feynman path integral, QED, QCD and QFTCST. If you want to test me on any of those topics, try.

Yes, I went for the "personal attacks". Sure. It had nothing yo do with you lying and being caught in that lie, refusing to respond to others, ignoring responses and answers you were given, and when all that didn't work, claiming that I was relying on arguments from authority.

Well I tell you what the internet doesn't say. I earn A Master in 1969.

Yes, so you reported to concordia university magazine:
"Science fiction fans take their literature seriously, so the five-star rating on Amazon.ca for Zohra: The Planet of Truth and Knowledge (1st Books Library, $30.50), by Joseph Palazzo, S BSc 68, speaks volumes. Zohra mixes aliens, humans, suspense and warmth in the fashion of E.T. Palazzo, who received an MA from McMaster University in nuclear physics in 1969, worked as a teacher for 28 years at the Montreal Catholic School Commission and is now retired."

Of course, McMaster doesn't have that particular degree and never did, and was barely beginning the transition into the university is now, but you claimed to be a professor with a PhD here, so lying to to an alumni magazine to get some press doesn't seem atypical.

And as you have continued to refuse to define what it was Einstien meant, and I have quoted your basic failure to understand the physics books you've touted (not to mention the math), what's the point in continuing to try to explain to someone who
1) will accuse others of arguments from authority right after linking to textbooks that they didn't understand and had to ask others for help with
2) will lie about their credentials, lie about their experience, and boost their ratings for self-published sci fi which is about the only link to science they have
3) will dodge questions by either simply ignoring them our writing them off as the ignorance of the other person (or with claims about not understanding Einstein) but insist that their nonsense be addressed
4) Starts out with personal attacks, backs them up with lies, and then when finally confronted with what turns out to be a total distortion of the truth and reveals an amateur who can't understand the basics but has no problem insulting others

??

Went teaching and raised a family. Then took a sabbatical leave to earn a PHD. Took an early retirement because I had cancer. Wrote sci-fi books not for the glory because I was sick, depressed, fighting for my life, and I need to take my mind off.

I read you account of your experience with cancer, and that is truly a terrible tragedy.

It does not excuse insulting others, refusing to answer their questions while claiming your own aren't answered or when refusing to respond in a way that makes any sense, not to mention the fact that whether you did or din't actually enter a PhD program, you have shown here and elsewhere that you don't know what you are talking about.

Now, if you continue this personal attack, I will report you to the authorities for bullying over the internet. I will find you out, and sue the hell out of you.

Feel free. I have no problem with debates even with those I disagree with. I do have a problem when with people telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, who do the same to others that I know are familiar with the field, and who are only interested in bullying others unless someone exposes them in which case they go from being insulting, dismissive, arrogant, and so forth to claiming victim status.

Do we understand each other?

No. You don't understand where I'm coming from, because you don't know what you are talking about, and I don't understand why you insist on digging your own grave. How many ways can one demonstrate you are wrong, have lied, have claimed to be the expert you aren't, have demonstrated elsewhere and here that you misunderstand basic concepts, and above all else have done this while insulting anybody who disagrees? That I don't get. I never expected you to admit you didn't have a clue. I hoped that you'd just drop it when it was abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. You didn't.

 

[zaybu]

Yes, I went for the "personal attacks". Sure. It had nothing yo do with you lying and being caught in that lie, refusing to respond to others, ignoring responses and answers you were given, and when all that didn't work, claiming that I was relying on arguments from authority.



Yes, so you reported to concordia university magazine:
"Science fiction fans take their literature seriously, so the five-star rating on Amazon.ca for Zohra: The Planet of Truth and Knowledge (1st Books Library, $30.50), by Joseph Palazzo, S BSc 68, speaks volumes. Zohra mixes aliens, humans, suspense and warmth in the fashion of E.T. Palazzo, who received an MA from McMaster University in nuclear physics in 1969, worked as a teacher for 28 years at the Montreal Catholic School Commission and is now retired."

Of course, McMaster doesn't have that particular degree and never did, and was barely beginning the transition into the university is now, but you claimed to be a professor with a PhD here, so lying to to an alumni magazine to get some press doesn't seem atypical.

And as you have continued to refuse to define what it was Einstien meant, and I have quoted your basic failure to understand the physics books you've touted (not to mention the math), what's the point in continuing to try to explain to someone who
1) will accuse others of arguments from authority right after linking to textbooks that they didn't understand and had to ask others for help with
2) will lie about their credentials, lie about their experience, and boost their ratings for self-published sci fi which is about the only link to science they have
3) will dodge questions by either simply ignoring them our writing them off as the ignorance of the other person (or with claims about not understanding Einstein) but insist that their nonsense be addressed
4) Starts out with personal attacks, backs them up with lies, and then when finally confronted with what turns out to be a total distortion of the truth and reveals an amateur who can't understand the basics but has no problem insulting others

??



I read you account of your experience with cancer, and that is truly a terrible tragedy.

It does not excuse insulting others, refusing to answer their questions while claiming your own aren't answered or when refusing to respond in a way that makes any sense, not to mention the fact that whether you did or din't actually enter a PhD program, you have shown here and elsewhere that you don't know what you are talking about.


Feel free. I have no problem with debates even with those I disagree with. I do have a problem when with people telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, who do the same to others that I know are familiar with the field, and who are only interested in bullying others unless someone exposes them in which case they go from being insulting, dismissive, arrogant, and so forth to claiming victim status.





No. You don't understand where I'm coming from, because you don't know what you are talking about, and I don't understand why you insist on digging your own grave. How many ways can one demonstrate you are wrong, have lied, have claimed to be the expert you aren't, have demonstrated elsewhere and here that you misunderstand basic concepts, and above all else have done this while insulting anybody who disagrees? That I don't get. I never expected you to admit you didn't have a clue. I hoped that you'd just drop it when it was abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. You didn't.

You're the one who started this thread so we could discuss this topic. But all get is you investigating a few activities that I did on the internet over the years, which btw, anyone can do, to prove what? Do you know that Einstein had mutiple affairs? Is it relevant to discuss his theories?

Since post #51, I have asked you to stop personal attack, to bury the ax so we can go on with the topic. Still you come back with more personal attacks.

Now either we get back to the topic, or I have to conclude that you are not up to par to discuss it.

If you are still willing to discuss this topic, post #47 would be a start. It's up to you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3315313-post47.html

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If I'm wrong, then you'll have to do better that just stating that.

To begin with, I'm not trying to show you're wrong. I'm just trying to find out if this is your own personal view, or the view of most physicists or even a substantial minority of serious physicists. All the evidence points to the former.

Once we have resolved that question, THEN I would be happy to explain why I think you are wrong.

If most physicists don't share your view, why can't you just admit it so we can move on? OTOH if most physicists (or even a substantial minority) agree with you, why can't you quote them? You would think if this was controversial then there would be letters to the editor or counter-articles responding to the ones Legion and I cited.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

More to the point, nonlocality is useless. In QFT, you'll learn path integral, renormalization, gauge invariance, spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs mechanism and Wilson loops, and none of these concepts require nonlocality. And these are the core of QFT, which is the core of the Standard Model. IOW, if you study QM, never heard of nonlocality, you'll be okay to undertake QFT.

... Now in QFT, we deal with particles interacting at sub-nuclear level. We do encounter infinities, but these are dealt with processes like regularization ( which works ok in flat splace, but in curved space, you can't ignore that infinity), renormalization ( which is ok up to the Planck level). And when you try to insert gravity into the Lagrangian, you get terms that are non-renormalizable, and non-linear terms due to the fact that gravitons are themselves sources of gravity. As I've pointed out in a precedent post, none of those concerns in QFT involves non-locality.

So pardon me, if I say that the notion of non-locality to be quite useless.

If you go through the derivation of Bell's theorem (at the end of the text), Bell uses only classical logic. That was one of his assumption.

Once you answer my question about "most physicists", or even guess at or concede you aren't sure about the answer, I would be happy to discuss these points.

 

[zaybu]

To begin with, I'm not trying to show you're wrong. I'm just trying to find out if this is your own personal view, or the view of most physicists or even a substantial minority of serious physicists. All the evidence points to the former.

I wish it would be my personal view - that would make me very smart. LOL.

No, that Bell's theorem is based on classical logic and its violations demonstrate that classical logic fails to describe quantum systems comes from Leonard Susskind. In a lecture, many years ago I can't recall the year, he derived Bell's theorem by using exclusively Venn's diagrams -- you cannot get any closer to classical logic then with Venn's diagram. And he then showed with quantum logic, that Bell's theorem will be violated. There Was no need to invoke non-locality.

But I do remember that Susskind saying, paraphrasing: " Either Bell's theorem is one of the most profound theorem or very trivial". The smirk on his face indicated the latter. But that's my take ( about the smirk).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're the one who started this thread so we could discuss this topic.

I started this thread, but what "this topic" actually is concerns what you have dodged first through attacks and then through playing the victim (and a whole lot in between).

So, my first question is given this expertise, why is it that scientific literature, from monograph series to the most distinguished journals on the planet, don't reflect the views this experts views?

The closest you have come to answering this question is saying that QFT textbooks don't use the term "spooky action at a distance". You haven't even bothered to define what Einstein meant by this, what this "spooky action at a distance" refers to.

How can we possibly discuss the topic of whether or not "spooky action at a distance" is accepted and has been shown repeatedly to be true, when you have constantly refused to define what Einstein meant by it?


I started this thread with a very clear description of what it is Einstein meant, and that he was correct insofar as what he called "spooky action at a distance" have been experimentally demonstrated:
"In simple words, the correlated spins of the EPR experiment are in some contact over arbitrary space-like distances of our space–time continuum, and if one spin is measured in one station, the correlated spin in another station is instantaneously influenced. This fact contradicts the locality conditions of Einstein and Einstein's very argument, for lack of completeness of quantum mechanics. Einstein called the instantaneous interaction of the spatially separated spins “spukhafte Fernwirkungen” (spooky action at a distance). He did not accept the possibility of such spooky action and, because quantum mechanics appeared to demand it, it had to be at least incomplete. The Bell theorem and its standard interpretation have turned the logic around. Its supporters now claim that local hidden parameters do not exist and cannot explain the EPR experiments. Quantum mechanics does agree with these experiments, and spooky action at a distance must be accepted as a fact of nature." (source)

So, if you want to have a discussion about whether or not what Einstein called "spukhafte Fernwirkungen” is accepted as "a fact of nature", you need to define what you believe he meant. That is, what phenomenon or phenomena did Einstein refer to with this term? Until you answer that, we can't very well discuss it, can we?

 

[zaybu]

So, if you want to have a discussion about whether or not what Einstein called "spukhafte Fernwirkungen” is accepted as "a fact of nature", you need to define what you believe he meant. That is, what phenomenon or phenomena did Einstein refer to with this term? Until you answer that, we can't very well discuss it, can we?

I guess the discussion with you is over.