Einstein and "spooky actions"

[Skwim]

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.

But B could also be false. Right? And if B could also be false what's preventing one from concluding as much?

 

[zaybu]

But B could also be false. Right? And if B could also be false what's preventing one from concluding as much?

Of course it could be true or false. My objection is those who claim that it IS false as there isn't conclusive evidence to make that claim. And of course, if you want to believe that non-locality still exists, at this point, it is no more than an opinion or a speculation. And it might turn out to be true, but for that to become an established fact, we will need some other types of experiment to confirm that. Violations of Bell's theorem doesn't cut it.

 

[Curious George]

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

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

[/quote]

Could there not be more to this. Suppose we look at it like this

locality vs. non-locality

If locality is true then QM would operate within the parameters of this inequality.
Whereas if there are examples of contrary to the inequality then locality cannot be true.

Now, there is an assumption of logic, but that logic could be precisely what Bell's theorem tries to resolve. The question then becomes can one have local theories which do not rely on the logic? If local theories by necessity force "classical logic" into quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is not compatible with "classical logic" then local theories must be erroneous.

However, if we can avoid certain assumptions of "classical logic" and still maintain a local theory then the bell inequality theorem does not conclusively prove non-locality.

Or if we look for loopholes such as communication faster than the speed of light, we also find that we can have local theories. But without the loop-holes or other local theories, we are left with the fact that local theories force "classical logic" into quantum mechanics and consequently, if they are correct Bell's theorem should hold true.


However, whether this is the correct frame or not, I could not say for sure. What I am asking is: why could this not be an equally valid way of looking at Bell experiments as your simple assumption A and assumption B method?

 

[zaybu]

Could there not be more to this. Suppose we look at it like this

locality vs. non-locality

If locality is true then QM would operate within the parameters of this inequality.
Whereas if there are examples of contrary to the inequality then locality cannot be true.

Now, there is an assumption of logic, but that logic could be precisely what Bell's theorem tries to resolve. The question then becomes can one have local theories which do not rely on the logic? If local theories by necessity force "classical logic" into quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is not compatible with "classical logic" then local theories must be erroneous.

However, if we can avoid certain assumptions of "classical logic" and still maintain a local theory then the bell inequality theorem does not conclusively prove non-locality.

Or if we look for loopholes such as communication faster than the speed of light, we also find that we can have local theories. But without the loop-holes or other local theories, we are left with the fact that local theories force "classical logic" into quantum mechanics and consequently, if they are correct Bell's theorem should hold true.


However, whether this is the correct frame or not, I could not say for sure. What I am asking is: why could this not be an equally valid way of looking at Bell experiments as your simple assumption A and assumption B method?

You have to understand that Bell's theorem applies to classical system. Hope this is very clear.

Now, you devise an experiment. You look at your results and they don't fit with that theorem.

You wonder why. You study that theorem carefully and you find that it is based on two assumptions. You don't know which one is false. Is it A, is it B, is it both?

Then some smart physicist called Susskind comes to you, and say, listen, the first assumption is wrong.

You ask why. He demonstrates. The logic applies to classical physics, and then points out that your experiment is about a quantum system.

Would you deduct from this that assumption B is true or false? I think not.

What I'm saying is if you want to investigate whether or not non-locality is a fundamental feature of the universe, you need to forget about Bell's theorem. You are going to need another yardstick from which you can design an experiment that will allow you to investigate that issue.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Curious George and Skwim,

If you want to learn about this subject, I suggest finding a more reliable source.

 

[zaybu]

Curious George and Skwim,

If you want to learn about this subject, I suggest finding a more reliable source.

Besides your multiple ad hominem attacks, you haven't present any substantial argument to what I have posted so far.

It's quite ironic that you are trying to demystify quantum physics in another thread, and at the same time, defending the idea of spooky action at a distance, which can only perpetuate the mystification of it.

 

[Curious George]

You have to understand that Bell's theorem applies to classical system. Hope this is very clear.

Now, you devise an experiment. You look at your results and they don't fit with that theorem.

You wonder why. You study that theorem carefully and you find that it is based on two assumptions. You don't know which one is false. Is it A, is it B, is it both?

Then some smart physicist called Susskind comes to you, and say, listen, the first assumption is wrong.

You ask why. He demonstrates. The logic applies to classical physics, and then points out that your experiment is about a quantum system.

Would you deduct from this that assumption B is true or false? I think not.

What I'm saying is if you want to investigate whether or not non-locality is a fundamental feature of the universe, you need to forget about Bell's theorem. You are going to need another yardstick from which you can design an experiment that will allow you to investigate that issue.

So, then why does classical logic not apply to quantum physics?

 

[zaybu]

So, then why does classical logic not apply to quantum physics?

The whole mathematical framework is different. In classical physics, we make no distinction between the state of the particle and its observables. In QM, we do: states are represented by vectors, and observables by operators. And so when we apply logic - in Bell's theorem, we use Boolean algebra, or Venn's diagram, which presupposes that states/observables are points of a set theory - to a classical system, whatever result you'll get, it is no surprise that it won't apply to a quantum system. So, one mistake, no distinction between states and observables; second mistake, states/observables are points rather than vectors/operators.

 

[Curious George]

The whole mathematical framework is different. In classical physics, we make no distinction between the state of the particle and its observables. In QM, we do: states are represented by vectors, and observables by operators. And so when we apply logic - in Bell's theorem, we use Boolean algebra, or Venn's diagram, which presupposes that states/observables are points of a set theory - to a classical system, whatever result you'll get, it is no surprise that it won't apply to a quantum system. So, one mistake, no distinction between states and observables; second mistake, states/observables are points rather than vectors/operators.

And, if Bell could show that locality is derived from Boolean Algebra? then either there was an error in the derivation or non-locality is a part of quantum physics?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Besides your multiple ad hominem attacks, you haven't present any substantial argument to what I have posted so far.

It's not ad hominem to say that your posts demonstrate confusion on premises, ergo, arguments derived from them are unreliable.

For the record: I presented substantial arguments to what you posted at first, but you ignored or misunderstood what I said and skipped along to something else. I can tell from this that you aren't really open to anything I'm saying--which is a shame, because I can see which parts of your understanding are wrong and could explain it to you, if you would listen. But if you won't be persuaded on the basic concepts on quantum mechanics, and have no shame in saying untrue things without owning up to it, then discussion of the more difficult and subtle concepts is impossible.

I clarify this for the benefit of Curious George and Skwim, in case they are interested.

 

[Skwim]

It's not ad hominem to say that your posts demonstrate confusion on premises, ergo, arguments derived from them are unreliable.

For the record: I presented substantial arguments to what you posted at first, but you ignored or misunderstood what I said and skipped along to something else. I can tell from this that you aren't really open to anything I'm saying--which is a shame, because I can see which parts of your understanding are wrong and could explain it to you, if you would listen. But if you won't be persuaded on the basic concepts on quantum mechanics, and have no shame in saying untrue things without owning up to it, then discussion of the more difficult and subtle concepts is impossible.

I clarify this for the benefit of Curious George and Skwim, in case they are interested.

And I thank you, Mr Sprinkles.

 

[zaybu]

And, if Bell could show that locality is derived from Boolean Algebra? then either there was an error in the derivation or non-locality is a part of quantum physics?

I suppose that hypothetically if one could derive a theorem that could show non-locality is a possibility, and then people would devise experiments to verify this theorem, that would be fine. That's what science is about, go for it.

 

[zaybu]

It's not ad hominem to say that your posts demonstrate confusion on premises, ergo, arguments derived from them are unreliable.

For the record: I presented substantial arguments to what you posted at first, but you ignored or misunderstood what I said and skipped along to something else. I can tell from this that you aren't really open to anything I'm saying--which is a shame, because I can see which parts of your understanding are wrong and could explain it to you, if you would listen. But if you won't be persuaded on the basic concepts on quantum mechanics, and have no shame in saying untrue things without owning up to it, then discussion of the more difficult and subtle concepts is impossible.

I clarify this for the benefit of Curious George and Skwim, in case they are interested.

Well, I have the same opinion with your take on QM. Your posts are full of confusion, misconceptions and groundless conclusions. It's too bad you gave up on the discussion, and by doing so, you forfeited a great occasion to learn something that would have challenged your long held beliefs. And it's unfortunate that with such erroneous beliefs, you will inadvertently continue the misperception that there is some woowoo in quantum physics, when there is none whatsoever.

HINT 1: just your tirade on how I wrote down the singlet state was a red flag that you have very little training in doing physics problems. Since when there is ONLY ONE way to solve a problem? If you are tackling a projectile problem you can do it in so many ways: looking at components of the forces along an x-y plane, or using energy conservation, or writing down the Lagrangian, etc. Writing a singlet will depend heavily on what problem you intend to solve, and for you not realize that, speaks loudly of your little expertise in the field. The only thing you seem to be good at is cut and paste, and invoke an appeal to authority. Sorry, that's not the way to do science.

HINT 2 : You wrote: "Notice that according to what you wrote down, we know the precise spin state of both particles before a measurement is done. In other words, what you wrote down is not an entangled state."

Watch this video between 12:00 and 15:00, and what Susskind says about writing down an entangled state of two particles:

http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/double-slit-experiment/

HINT 3 : You wrote: "You seem to be suggesting (incorrectly) that disproving Bell's theorem is a blow against nonlocality."

No, I'm saying that if the results of an experiment violate Bell's theorem, you can't conclude that assumption 2 (on locality) is false.

HINT 4 : You wrote: "The two remaining contenders in light of Bell violations are (1) nonlocal + hidden variables, and (2) nonlocal and no hidden variables either (orthodox QM)."

Not according to this :http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

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.

 

[zaybu]

One more argument:

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.

Consider any measurements A, B and C.

Classical system:

You use Boolean algebra, based on set theory, you get (Bell's inequality):

(1) Number(A, not B) + Number(B, not C) is greater than or equal to Number(A, not C)

Quantum system:

You use vectors in a Hilbert Space, you get (violations of Bell's inequality):

(2) Number(A, not B) + Number(B, not C) is not greater than or equal to Number(A, not C)

You do an experiment, and your results confirm (2), then your only conclusion is you have a quantum system.

 

[zaybu]

The OP

As so often happens in threads (particularly ones in which I am involved in, but that's purely coincidental) things became somewhat off-topic. I have begun a new topic so that the discussion will be on topic. And that topic has to do with a well-known quip of Einstein's, what it meant then and what it means now.
.
.
However, I am told that I have misunderstood everything I've read, and been informed that we have an expert to explain why:


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?

Since no one has been capable of defeating my arguments, can I declare myself the winner of this debate?

 

[PolyHedral]

The OP



Since no one has been capable of defeating my arguments, can I declare myself the winner of this debate?

I'm not 100% sure what you're even trying to argue, so no.

 

[zaybu]

I'm not 100% sure what you're even trying to argue, so no.

Good, I welcome that. Is there anything I can help to clarify my argument so that they can be clearer to you? Perhaps starting with this post? (or any other of your choosing)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3320203-post134.html

 

[Reptillian]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/undergradua...here-when-nobody-looks-physics-today-1985.pdf

Please read this and let me know what you think.

 

[Reptillian]

I've been trying to read up on quantum logic, it's formalism, and how it differs from classical logic. I'm well versed in classical logic having taken both math courses and a philosophy course in the subject, but can't seem to find any good info on quantum logic... I'm guessing it's a relatively new field. Anybody have any links for me?

 

[idav]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/undergradua...here-when-nobody-looks-physics-today-1985.pdf

Please read this and let me know what you think.

I think the moon is to massive too ignore classical physics.