Einstein and "spooky actions"

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bell's theorem is constantly being violated. There are thousands of articles claiming that."

It's probably futile, as this has already been explained by one more qualified than I, but statements like this one are to me the equivalent of "evolution is just a theory". It is a misrepresentation of what is being violated and what this violation means.

The following is from Hemmick & Shakur's Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism: Reassessment in Light of the Schrödinger Paradox (Springer Briefs in Physics; Springer, 2012):

"Because quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality, it is in empirical disagreement with the family of local physical theories.
Thus, we have that if the quantum predictions are correct, then there is no way to explain the experimental results using any local theory. And indeed, experiments have supported quantum mechanics in this regard, so that we may conclude also that nature is nonlocal." (italics in original, emphases aded; p. 52).

There are two basic ways to prove anything (I am using proof here in the technical sense; i.e., the reason evolution is not proven, but is a theory, is because proofs are always mathematical, even if they are written using propositions rather than symbols and numbers).

If I am trying to prove that not all swans are white, I can do this by assuming that all swans are white, and then by finding a single black swan. It is a proof by contradiction.

Bell's "assumptions" are so that this kind of proof is possible. The things Bell "assumed" (in the mathematical sense) were correlations and locality. A violation is when one or the other of these assumptions turns out to be false. Aspect and those that followed used this to test whether either assumption would turn out to be false.

What they found were correlations, but not locality. They found "counter-examples" to Bell's assumptions which proved that there is no way to locally explain their results. The correlations cannot be explained by any local means, because they are the "black swans" which prove that the assumption of locality cannot hold.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry, you're the one who refuses to be educated.

Incredible.

"The violation of Bell's theorem is a very simple way to see that there is no underlying classical interpretation of quantum mechanics."

Again, we all agree that this is true.

Student:''Is there anything we can say about it ( violations of Bell`s theorem)''

Again:
"Because quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality, it is in empirical disagreement with the family of local physical theories.
Thus, we have that if the quantum predictions are correct, then there is no way to explain the experimental results using any local theory. And indeed, experiments have supported quantum mechanics in this regard, so that we may conclude also that nature is nonlocal."

Bell's theorem is called a theorem because it is mathematical. It is not a theory. Violating does not prove that it is wrong or right. It is there to show what the implications are if certain conditions hold or fail to hold.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry, you're the one who refuses to be educated.

No, me too! I refuse to be educated too!

 

[zaybu]

Student:''Is there anything we can say about it ( violations of Bell`s theorem)''

"Because quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality, it is in empirical disagreement with the family of local physical theories.
Thus, we have that if the quantum predictions are correct, then there is no way to explain the experimental results using any local theory. And indeed, experiments have supported quantum mechanics in this regard, so that we may conclude also that nature is nonlocal."

Wrong.

After the Student says:''Is there anything we can say about it ( violations of Bell`s theorem)''

The answer from Susskind is:
''The only thing we can say about it is a very clear demonstration that quantum mechanics cannot be the statistical theory of a system governed by classical logic. That's the only thing you can learn from it.''

Which part of "That's the only thing you can learn from it" don't you understand?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I read that and didn't answer because you are comparing apples with oranges. Yes, in case of Newton, non-locality arises as a consequence, but in Bell's theorem, since it is based on two explicitly stated assumptions, and one of which being hidden local parameters (non-locality), and so the whole deal about this theorem is to test precisely if those two assumptions are correct or not. This is not the case with Newton.

You're wrong. First, "hidden local parameters" are local theories. Nonlocality means no hidden variables. In other words, you've stated above that Bell's first assumption was nonlocal locality. Perhaps this is why you don't give the second assumption?

Also, these "assumptions" are not of the kind you believe them to be. The assumptions tell us something. They are constraints demonstrating what particular findings mean if these constraints do not hold. Also, it's not, strictly speaking, true that Bell made two assumptions at all.

The important point, though, is that Bell's theorem was a proof. It demonstrates mathematically that if certain results are obtained (violations of Bell's inequality), then these results cannot be explained by any local theory or "hidden variables".

Even more generally, like EPR, it tells us that under the assumption QM is correct/complete, then certain things must hold true.

What things must hold true and and why? Well, (again under the assumption that QM is complete/accurate), Bell's theorem proves that there is no way to account for particular correlations between space-like seperated quantum systems (such as paired photons) via locality.

Of course, if one doesn't find the correlations, or if they do not violate the constraints of Bell's theorem, then then we can't assert anything. However, Aspect et al. (and those that followed) did find these correlations, and these correlations did violate the constraints of Bell's theorem. Therefore, no local theory can explain these correlations.

A violation of Bell's theorem is a violation of locality. It's finding correlations that violate the constraints Bell imposed on any correlations that could be explained by a local theory. To put it another way, a violation of these constraints (of Bell's inequality) cannot be explained by any local theory.

So of course, if a researcher designs an experiment and finds that Bell's theorem is violated, what will be the first claim you'll see in that paper?

This: "The present results, in excellent agreement with the quantum mechanical predictions, lead to the greatest violation of generalized Bell's inequalities ever achieved".

That Einstein was right, that nonlocality is real, and often accompanied with spooky action at a distance.

Nonlocality is what Einstein called "spooky actions at a distance". The above is like saying "that QM is nonlocal, and is often accompanied by non-locality."

But that's totally wrong. The only claim you can make after stating that your results show that indeed Bell's theorem is violated, which is to be expected, is that it shows the first assumption is wrong, which is that classical logic fails to describe a quantum system, which is demontrable not only by experiment but also in theory, of which Susskind has demonstrated in his lecture, and NOTHING ELSE can be claimed.

The way you describe the first assumption, we don't need any experiment at all. It's pretty easy to show that if one assumes nonlocal locality, then one is wrong. But because apparently you didn't realize that "hidden variables" were part of local theories (Einstein, Bohm, and others wanted to use these to prove that QM was local), we've wasted all this time on what Bell showed because you didn't know what "hidden variables" meant.

If anyone wants to prove that non-locality exist, or the second assumption in Bell's theorem is wrong, then one must design an experiment that explicily shows the second and only the second assumption is wrong.

The second assumption was locality.

Now you might say, as Legion has claimed, that even physicists like Susskind have called for a non-local theory.

Or you might try reading Bell's paper. And EPR. And what real physicists are saying in scientific literature, not in lecture notes or online lectures.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wrong.

After the Student says:''Is there anything we can say about it ( violations of Bell`s theorem)''

The answer from Susskind is:
''The only thing we can say about it is a very clear demonstration that quantum mechanics cannot be the statistical theory of a system governed by classical logic. That's the only thing you can learn from it.''

Which part of "That's the only thing you can learn from it" don't you understand?

The part where you fundamentally misunderstand what "classical logic" means. Why do you think Susskind says "classical set theory", not just "set theory"?

"Since the seminal work by Bell, we know that there exist quantum correlations that cannot be thought of classically. This impossibility is known as nonlocality and follows from the fact that the correlations obtained when performing local measurements on entangled quantum states may violate a Bell inequality, which sets conditions satisfied by all classically correlated systems."
Aolita, L., Gallego, R., Acín, A., Chiuri, A., Vallone, G., Mataloni, P., & Cabello, A. (2012). Fully nonlocal quantum correlations. Physical Review A, 85(3).

You keep claiming things about classical logic, and how this matters in terms of Bell's assumptions, but as it turns out, you're wrong about all of these things. First, the "violation of classical logic" is nonlocality. Second, hidden variables are local theories, and you equated these with nonlocality.

"At present, essentially three distinct types of nonlocal correlations can be identified in nature: Bell nonlocality, Schrödinger’s steerability, and entanglement. Bell nonlocality, the strongest of the three, concerns the existence or not of a local hidden variable model for a set of correlations. If such a model does not exist, then the correlations violate some Bell-type inequality, and are termed Bell nonlocal."
Walborn, S. P., Salles, A., Gomes, R. M., Toscano, F., & Souto Ribeiro, P. H. (2011). Revealing hidden einstein-podolsky-rosen nonlocality. Physical Review Letters, 106(13)

 

[zaybu]

The part where you fundamentally misunderstand what "classical logic" means. Why do you think Susskind says "classical set theory", not just "set theory"?

Classical logic and classical set theory are interchangeable. It has no bearing to our discussion.

"Since the seminal work by Bell, we know that there exist quantum correlations that cannot be thought of classically. This impossibility is known as nonlocality and follows from the fact that the correlations obtained when performing local measurements on entangled quantum states may violate a Bell inequality, which sets conditions satisfied by all classically correlated systems."
Aolita, L., Gallego, R., Acín, A., Chiuri, A., Vallone, G., Mataloni, P., & Cabello, A. (2012). Fully nonlocal quantum correlations. Physical Review A, 85(3).

You're only proving that these people have misunderstood what Bell's theorem is about. Any experiment on a quantum system will violate Bell's theorem as Susskind showed on a theoretical basis.

And how did he do? He showed that Bell used classical logic, or in your terms, set theory when in quantum mechanics, you need to use vectors in a Hilbert, not set theory. So just on that basis, every quantum system will violate Bell's theorem. And if you follow the lecture -- probably you can't because your math background stinks - Susskind is emphatic in that video. After more than one hour not a peep from him about non-locality. So when the student asking: ''Is there anything we can say about it", one can easly guess that the student had non-locality on his mind, since this the one thing Susskind has avoided in the lecture. So Susskind's answer is very telling. Not only does he reiterate what I have been saying from the very first reply I posted in this forum, but he says emphatically, "That's the only thing you can learn from it." He avoids completely the subject of non-locality.

Now I know you will never admit you're wrong. You have invested too much on your position. I'm only answering for those who are following the debate. And if anyone cares to listen to that video, one will know that is exactly what Susskind does in that lecture.

Good luck in your hunt for the mysterious spooky action at a distance. If one day you can design an experiment to prove it, I'll put in a good word for you to the Nobel committee.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Classical logic and classical set theory are interchangeable. It has no bearing to our discussion.

1) No, they aren't.
2) The point was why "classical set theory" rather than "set theory"?

You stated:

"Bell's theorem is a result from set theory." BTW, that's classical logic

So why would Susskind not just say "set theory"?

You're only proving that these people have misunderstood what Bell's theorem is about. Any experiment on a quantum system will violate Bell's theorem as Susskind showed on a theoretical basis.

Susskind didn't show anything of the sort. He answered a question in a classroom and that leads you to believe
1) You have any idea what he ever means, even though you thought "hidden variable" and "nonlocality" were the same, you think that "set theory" is unique to "classical logic" (which I demonstrated was incorrect), and you have been unable to define what "quantum logic" means in terms of physical systems.
2) you can use a lecture and an answer to a student's question (and this isn't an appeal to authority) to refute physcs literature. That's what I cited: physics literature. It is written, reviewed, and used by physicists to understand physics. You think that we should ignore this because you have access to youtube. You can't even understand the basics of Bell's theorem, you clearly have zero knowledge of what you insist "quantum logic" is, and yet somehow for you an answer to a student's question is more reliable than the very literature that Susskind relies on. Right.

Who should we believe? Someone who lies about who they are, lies about their expertise, mocks others and plays the victim, can't get even the basics of Bell's theorem correct (THAT was priceless: "hidden local parameters (non-locality)"; I wonder if it is even possible to demonstrate so utterly that one doesn't understand Bell's theorem than you did there), and now claims physicists don't know physics.

And how did he do? He showed that Bell used classical logic, or in your terms, set theory when in quantum mechanics, you need to use vectors in a Hilbert, not set theory

Oh, so now we don't need "quantum logic"? And once more, vectors "in a Hilbert" are a mathematical set (or they would be, if you had described Hilbert space better).

What do these vectors represent?

So just on that basis, every quantum system will violate Bell's theorem.

Wrong.

And if you follow the lecture -- probably you can't because your math background stinks

Right. That's why you said classical logic is based on set theory, but quantum logic is based on vectors in Hilbert.

I All logics use set theory, and quantum logic is actually another way to refer to quantum sets and the operations on them, which is why we find papers in peer-reviewed journals like:
"Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory"
El Naschie, M. S. (2004). Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 19(5), 1339-1344.

or papers in volumes such as this: "A Completeness Theorem of Quantum Set Theory"
from
Engesser, K., Gabbay, D. M., & Lehmann, D. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures: quantum logic. Elsevier Science.


or statements like:

"Our approach is based on quantum logic or quantum set theory" in the paper "Quantum Reality and Measurement: A Quantum Logical Approach" (Foundations of Physics 2011, Vol. 41(3), pp. 592-607).


It's why we find things like: "The spectrum of an operator A on a Hilbert space H is the subset of C given by
σ(A):= { λ ∈ C | A - λ is not invertible"

p. 35. of Mathematical Concepts of Quantum Physics.

and even some you can access yourself: "Transfer principle in quantum set theory"

Susskind is emphatic in that video.

Remember that "argument from authority" bunk you spouted earlier? This would qualify. Not that Susskind isn't an expert (he is, which is why he stated "ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways"). It's that you are relying on an interpretation of what he says in an online classroom and using that to argue that physics literature means they've got it wrong.

He avoids completely the subject of non-locality.

He doesn't, actually. He might in whatever lectures you are using to misunderstand physics (because apparently a PhD in physics and 25 years of experience still mean you need online youtube lectures and lecture notes), but he is quite clear about it what he has written.

Now I know you will never admit you're wrong.

Amusing.

You have invested too much on your position. I'm only answering for those who are following the debate. And if anyone cares to listen to that video, one will know that is exactly what Susskind does in that lecture.

Do you know what it is that Susskind thinks of the measurement problem and what his interpretation of quantum mechanics is? it's not just non-local. His interpretation of quantum measurements isn't even spread out in this universe. Instead, "locality" for Susskind is spread out across universes. Maybe he mentions that in lectures or maybe he doesn't, but he did publish it in "Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics" Phys. Rev. D 85.

 

[Curious George]

After more than one hour not a peep from him about non-locality. So when the student asking: ''Is there anything we can say about it", one can easly guess that the student had non-locality on his mind, since this the one thing Susskind has avoided in the lecture. So Susskind's answer is very telling. Not only does he reiterate what I have been saying from the very first reply I posted in this forum, but he says emphatically, "That's the only thing you can learn from it." He avoids completely the subject of non-locality.

But he does mention non-locality(around 1:10 students ask him about Aspect), he only seemed to "avoid" it because he wanted to get to another topic and was short on time. Moreover, there is also a cut in the video. I would guess that the class has a break and he might have taken questions during that time from students interested in locality.

 

[zaybu]

1) No, they aren't.
2) The point was why "classical set theory" rather than "set theory"?
You stated:"Bell's theorem is a result from set theory." BTW, that's classical logic
So why would Susskind not just say "set theory"?

If you go to the video - and apparently you didn't bother to watch - at app. 1:03:19, Susskind uses both terms, classical logic and set theory.
[youtube]xXBx8_19nyw[/youtube]
Lecture 6 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford) - YouTube

If you know anything about math - apparently you don't - we are talking about the same mathematical frame. But besides this semantic, the more important issue which you don't seem to grasp,is if anyone develops a theorem using classical logic/set theory, it is only logical and to be expected that a quantum system won't obey that theorem. To do QM, you have to use a totally different math frame than in classical physics, and for QM, this involves vectors and operators in a Hilbert space. In both the notes and the video, Susskind emphasizes that. So on two assumptions that are used to derive Bell's theorem, one of them is classical logic/set theory, therefore any QM system results will violate that theorem.

That's a very simple argument. But somehow you can't come to term with it.

was priceless: "hidden local parameters (non-locality)"; I wonder if it is even possible to demonstrate so utterly that one doesn't understand Bell's theorem than you did there), and now claims physicists don't know physics.

There are many ways one can frame a question. Here's one:

We have made two assumptions in the proof. These are:

• Logic is a valid way to reason. The whole proof is an exercise in logic, at about the level of the "Fun With Numbers" puzzles one sometimes sees in newspapers and magazines.
• Parameters exist whether they are measured or not. For example, when we collected the terms Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C) to get Number(A, not C), we assumed that either not B or B is true for every member.

Bell's Theorem

Remember that "argument from authority bunk" you spouted earlier? This would qualify. Not that Susskind isn't an expert (he is, which is why he stated "ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways"). It's that you are relying on an interpretation of what he says in an online classroom and using that to argue that physics literature means they've got it wrong.

So when you appeal to authority, that's ok, but when I do, that's not ok.

If you had understood my objection to what is going on with regard to this issue, you wouldn't be saying that.

 

[zaybu]

But he does mention non-locality(around 1:10 students ask him about Aspect), he only seemed to "avoid" it because he wanted to get to another topic and was short on time. Moreover, there is also a cut in the video. I would guess that the class has a break and he might have taken questions during that time from students interested in locality.

It's a possibility, but if non-locality is such an important issue, why would he avoid it especially after the student asked," ''Is there anything more we can say about it ?" Secondly, in the notes about this lecture, again he avoids mentioning non-locality. The best argument one can make about this avoidance is that Susskind perhaps sees this issue as controversial.

 

[Curious George]

It's a possibility, but if non-locality is such an important issue, why would he avoid it especially after the student asked," ''Is there anything more we can say about it ?" Secondly, in the notes about this lecture, again he avoids mentioning non-locality. The best argument one can make about this avoidance is that Susskind perhaps sees this issue as controversial.

Well, I do not know that it is "such an important issue."

I could easily interpret his answer to "is there anything more...?" as his way of not dismissing non-locality but rather asserting that a violation alone implies the necessity of using the correct framework.


Also, I think that the whole set theory argument has gone way off the map in this thread.

Vector space is necessarily a "set," consequently, Hilbert Space necessarily employs "set theory." The distinction which Susskind seems to make however deals with the term "classical." I think that this term is being used somewhat loosely in the video you provided to mean traditional or prior to quantum concepts.

 

[Curious George]

It's a possibility, but if non-locality is such an important issue, why would he avoid it especially after the student asked," ''Is there anything more we can say about it ?" Secondly, in the notes about this lecture, again he avoids mentioning non-locality. The best argument one can make about this avoidance is that Susskind perhaps sees this issue as controversial.

So, after reading this thread, I am a little confused as to your point of view.

Are you suggesting that non-locality does not exist, does not need to exist, or we simply do not definitively know whether it exists?

 

[zaybu]

So, after reading this thread, I am a little confused as to your point of view.

Are you suggesting that non-locality does not exist, does not need to exist, or we simply do not definitively know whether it exists?

There are two basic assumptions, and I will use the language from this link: Bell's Theorem

We have made two assumptions in the proof. These are:

• Logic is a valid way to reason. The whole proof is an exercise in logic, at about the level of the "Fun With Numbers" puzzles one sometimes sees in newspapers and magazines.
• Parameters exist whether they are measured or not. For example, when we collected the terms Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C) to get Number(A, not C), we assumed that either not B or B is true for every member.

Of the two assumptions, the 1st one used to derive Bell's theorem clearly is meant for a classical system. So if one designs an experiment using a quantum system, it is no surprised its result will violate Bell's theorem.

My objection is for those who claim this violation proves non-locality (the 2nd assumption). And that's wrong, we can't make that conclusion when we already know that the 1st assumption is for a classical system, and incorrect for a quantum system.

If non-locality is a property of nature, then one must design an experiment that conclusively shows that. Violations of Bell's theorem is not a conclusive proof.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you go to the video - and apparently you didn't bother to watch - at app. 1:03:19, Susskind uses both terms, classical logic and set theory.
[youtube]xXBx8_19nyw[/youtube]
Lecture 6 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford) - YouTube

If you know anything about math - apparently you don't - we are talking about the same mathematical frame.

I've had it. Your unbelievabe arrogance and your insulting, dismissive tone might be justified if you were't a lying amateur whose knowledge of physics is so inept, inaccurate, and pointless that you need to rely on your personal misunderstanding of youtube lectues.

I addressed the math. Unlike you, I have spent's the last ~30 years teaching children. I came into quantum physics through mathematics.

There is, perhaps, no single indication that you a4re utterly, pathetically, and otherwise totally inept when it comes to understanding QM than when you equated 'hidden variable" with nonlocality. As these are opposite claims, you don't even understand the basics.

You rely on youtube to understand modern physics.
You value youtube over scientific literature.
You lie about what your credentials are
You claim to be an expert when we can find you asking for help to understand basic physics.
You don't answer critques or questions about you understanding.
The bast you can offer is youtube.

I'm tired of dealing with this obvsious ignorance. Not because you don't know what you're talking about, but because you have no interest in understanding why you're wrong.

You are an ex-teacher of kids whose knowledge is so lacking you need help with basic problems on physics forums. So spout all the nonsence you with. I am just too tired of dealing with your fundamental ignorance of what you're talking about to continue to point out where you are wrong.


But besides this semantic, the more important issue which you don't seem to grasp,is if anyone develops a theorem using classical logic/set theory, it is only logical and to be expected that a quantum system won't obey that theorem. To do QM, you have to use a totally different math frame than in classical physics, and for QM, this involves vectors and operators in a Hilbert space. In both the notes and the video, Susskind emphasizes that. So on two assumptions that are used to derive Bell's theorem, one of them is classical logic/set theory, therefore any QM system results will violate that theorem.

 

[zaybu]

I've had it.

I offer a simple argument, and all you can do is go on a rant. Nice going.

Here is the logic:

You have a theorem based on two assumptions:

1. Assumption A
2. Assumption B

You design an experiment which violates the theorem.

What can you conclude?

Either A is false, or B is false, or both.

But we know that A is false. Therefore you cannot conclude that B is false.

 

[Reptillian]

I offer a simple argument, and all you can do is go on a rant. Nice going.

Here is the logic:

You have a theorem based on two assumptions:

1. Assumption A
2. Assumption B

You design an experiment which violates the theorem.

What can you conclude?

Either A is false, or B is false, or both.

But we know that A is false. Therefore you cannot conclude that B is false.

Wait, you're saying A is false? Wasn't A Logic is valid? So you're using logic to show that logic is logically illogical?

[youtube]wlMegqgGORY[/youtube]
Liar's Paradox - YouTube

 

[Curious George]

There are two basic assumptions...



Of the two assumptions, the 1st one used to derive Bell's theorem clearly is meant for a classical system. So if one designs an experiment using a quantum system, it is no surprised its result will violate Bell's theorem.

My objection is for those who claim this violation proves non-locality (the 2nd assumption). And that's wrong, we can't make that conclusion when we already know that the 1st assumption is for a classical system, and incorrect for a quantum system.

I am not so sure that the second assumption is non-locality, based on your link.

And, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that a violation of the Bell Theorem simply proves that classical logic does not apply.

While this may be very basic to you, it is not an easy concept to grasp. I know I had trouble in this very thread understanding how "classical" logic did not apply. But, I think that comes from over analyzing. I was fitting expanding the scope of classical logic so much that it no longer fit in the "classical" logic box.

Anyhow, it seems as though other users are suggesting that the violation that we observe is non-locality. If the probability distribution were calculated in Hilbert Space, could we not still derive meaningful results mathematically (provided we were using the correct framework).

So, given the calculations and given photons separated to a point where light could not traverse the distance, are we not discussing non-locality. Why there could be other possibilities but given some of the papers which have been cited- it seems that non-locality is a valid hypothetical construct. This non-locality is a breach of "classical" physics and "classical logic.

There of course might be other explanations. But I do not think that the cited articles fail to support non-locality.

 

[zaybu]

I am not so sure that the second assumption is non-locality, based on your link.

This is one of the reason this subject is controversial. It deals with interpretations of QM. And different people have labelled the two assumptions in Bell's theorem often slightly different. Sometimes the (1) is called "realism", sometimes, (2) is called local hidden parameter. The link I gave you uses 1) logic 2) parameters exist whether they are measured or not.

But the situation doesn't change, no matter how you label these two assumptions.

1. Assumption A (logic)
2. Assumption B (locality)

If the experiment violates the theorem. What can you conclude? Either A is false, or B is false, or both. But we know A is definitely false for a quantum system. Then we cannot conclude anything about B.

And, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that a violation of the Bell Theorem simply proves that classical logic does not apply.

Yes, I have said that many times.

Anyhow, it seems as though other users are suggesting that the violation that we observe is non-locality.

If that conclusion stems from violations of Bell theorem, then in my estimation, it is not justified. If one has designed an experiment that clearly prove that non-locality exist, I would like to see. To my knowledge, all of the claims for non-locality have come from expriments that show violations of Bell's theorem.

If

the probability distribution were calculated in Hilbert Space, could we not still derive meaningful results mathematically (provided we were using the correct framework).[/QUOTE]

Possibly, but Bell's theorem is not one of them.



So, given the calculations and given photons separated to a point where light could not traverse the distance, are we not discussing non-locality. Why there could be other possibilities but given some of the papers which have been cited- it seems that non-locality is a valid hypothetical construct. This non-locality is a breach of "classical" physics and "classical logic.

There of course might be other explanations. But I do not think that the cited articles fail to support non-locality.[/quote]

 

[zaybu]

Wait, you're saying A is false? Wasn't A Logic is valid? So you're using logic to show that logic is logically illogical?

[youtube]wlMegqgGORY[/youtube]
Liar's Paradox - YouTube

Thanks, love that episode.

But to answer your question: Bell used the wrong logic.

For quantum logic, see Quantum Logic and Probability Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)