• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is mind body duality a simple misconception?

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Not for me, really. I only use one type of quantum manipulation technology and I don't have to worry about the same kind of issues.


And here I though the context was mind-body dualism.
Yes, and mind/body is equivalent to abstract/real, conceptual/material. One is conceptual, the other real/material/physical.
Of course there is. The problem is the ways in which this distinction is unknown. In classical physics, if I wanted to know the value of some observable/measurable quantity or property, the value I obtained is a direct representation with what I measured. For example, if I wish to know the mass of a baseball, I weigh it and the value I get is the mass (on Earth anyway). If I want to know the baseball's momentum when I throw it, I take my value for the mass, I get a radar gun or something, and I measure it's speed at some point in such a way that I can also account for it's direction so that I can multiply mass and velocity and bingo-bango my value is the momentum.

In quantum mechanics, such "observables" are never values, they are mathematical functions called operators. These functions act on the quantum system to give us information about its state. Now, how can a mathematical function "act on" a quantum system? Because the quantum system is a mathematical entity with no known correspondence to any physical reality. According to the standard interpretation, it's meaningless to ask what it corresponds to, and all we can ask about is what is obtained from measurement. Things get worse with extensions of QM to quantum field theories and particle physics.

The point is that we already have to be very careful about trying to ensure we are aware of when we are talking about a mathematical entity, a mathematical representation of some property, process, or state of a system when we don't really know what we are representing, and when we know we are dealing with some physical system and we have to be careful to ensure that we know which representations are intended to correspond to something "real", and how (for example, neuronal populations may be represented using network topology in which entire populations are operationally described as single nodes for convenience; that's a clear example of when we know our model corresponds to something real but the representation is simplified or otherwise indirect for one reason or another, like simplicity).

All of that, though, isn't the big deal. Sure it is interesting and all but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about except insofar as your choice to call physical something that has no material existence and exists only as a link that makes e.g., two photons separated by miles behave almost like one. The photons aren't the problem either. Whether entangled or in a superposition state, we can still call them photons and talk about as physical systems. The problem is a causal "agent" that exists only as a link, but one that "exists" in no-space & no-time (nothing in reality travels between the photons; the link doesn't exist as anything in our universe other than its causal role in the behavior of the entangled systems).

So, I ask again, in what sense is this no-time, no-space "link" physical? If it is not physical (and therefore by your definition not real) how is it able to causally affect physical systems?
In the sense that it is a phenomenon found in the physical universe (if it exists - which has not been established). If it was not physical, physics would not be exploring it - you are confusing physics for metaphysics. Science is the study of the physical universe, if it is not the physical material universe you are discussing - it is not science.

Besides, the simplest explanation here is that there may well not be a causal link at all - that is your assumption, not a known. You should read up on this subject, the alternate explanation was published a couple of years ago and involves no causal link. That there is a causal link at all has not been established - it is just a hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In the sense that it is a phenomenon found in the physical universe (if it exists - which has not been established).
1) How has it not been established?
2) You are using physical to define physical: "it's physical if it occurs in the physical universe".
3) Concepts occur in the physical universe. They shape our perception, cognition, communication, social structures, etc. Anger is a phenomenon found in the physical universe. This discussion board is a phenomenon found in the physical universe. The list goes on. When you basis for determining what is or isn't physical is whether one can say it is "found" in the physical universe, then you open the door for entire classes of phenonomena that are not usually believed to be physical.
4) According to some interpretations of QM, and partly held in the standard theory, physical systems "become" real or take on real properties only once they are observed/interacted with. Quantum systems under a physicalist interpretation are indefinite.
5) You are assuming there is one universe. There is good reason to believe that in some sense this isn't true, in the very least with respect to the fact that space and time are illusory (not real) and we are "four dimensional hunks of matter", as well as the fact that a "realist" view of QM can entail infinitely many universes.

If it was not physical, physics would not be exploring it
Have you heard of statistical mechanics? Would you say physicists use statistical mechanics and that nothing in it is describing something physical (or do you believe that statistical measures are physical?)?

Physicists explore physical phenomena, yes. But they do so in a variety of ways, even in classical physics. In modern physics, the line between the physical and the non-physical becomes quite blurred, so much so that the reason Einstein wrote (with co-authors) EPR was because it

you are confusing physics for metaphysics.
Very little of what I have said is something that isn't usually found in the foremost physics journals on the planet, not philosophy or metaphysics sources. You may regard them as metaphysics, but physicists do not. The main reason is because it is no longer the case that physical theories describe physical things. This is true in some sense of all of quantum physics and particle physics, in that in all such fields we describe "systems" which are only mathematical entities.


Science is the study of the physical universe
Ok then. Scientists don't understand what science is. Got it.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
1) How has it not been established?
What did you not understand about it not having been established that there is some non-physical causal link? What is confusing you there? It has not been established, the photon pair may not even be a pair.
2) You are using physical to define physical: "it's physical if it occurs in the physical universe".
I could use synonyms like real, material, tangible and so on - which I have explained
. They shape our perception, cognition, communication, social structures, etc. Anger is a phenomenon found in the physical universe.
No, they are all concepts/abstracts they do not occur in the physical universe, they are comceptual, not real.
This discussion board is a phenomenon found in the physical universe. The list goes on. When you basis for determining what is or isn't physical is whether one can say it is "found" in the physical universe, then you open the door for entire classes of phenonomena that are not usually believed to be physical.
Which is exactly what I am objecting to.I am simply distinguishing between concepts/abstracts and what exists/is real/is physical.
4) According to some interpretations of QM, and partly held in the standard theory, physical systems "become" real or take on real properties only once they are observed/interacted with. Quantum systems under a physicalist interpretation are indefinite.
5) You are assuming there is one universe. There is good reason to believe that in some sense this isn't true, in the very least with respect to the fact that space and time are illusory (not real) and we are "four dimensional hunks of matter", as well as the fact that a "realist" view of QM can entail infinitely many universes.


Have you heard of statistical mechanics? Would you say physicists use statistical mechanics and that nothing in it is describing something physical (or do you believe that statistical measures are physical?)?

Physicists explore physical phenomena, yes. But they do so in a variety of ways, even in classical physics. In modern physics, the line between the physical and the non-physical becomes quite blurred, so much so that the reason Einstein wrote (with co-authors) EPR was because it


Very little of what I have said is something that isn't usually found in the foremost physics journals on the planet, not philosophy or metaphysics sources. You may regard them as metaphysics, but physicists do not. The main reason is because it is no longer the case that physical theories describe physical things. This is true in some sense of all of quantum physics and particle physics, in that in all such fields we describe "systems" which are only mathematical entities.



Ok then. Scientists don't understand what science is. Got it.
I'm sure they do know what science is, you seem to be confused though.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What did you not understand about it not having been established
Well mostly the fact that it's been thoroughly established, but you're right I should have said "what evidence do you have that you are using to make this statement?" After all, the following kind of statements are replete in the literature:
"A fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics is the idea that two spatially separated objects exhibit correlations in observable physical properties that cannot be explained by any classical theory. Troubling even Einstein, this “spooky action at a distance” — known as entanglement"
Siddiqi, I., & Clarke, J. (2006). Entangled solid-state circuits. Science 313(5792), 1400.

"Entanglement is the essential feature of quantum mechanics"
Hofmann, J., Krug, M., Ortegel, N., Gérard, L., Weber, M., Rosenfeld, W., & Weinfurter, H. (2012). Heralded entanglement between widely separated atoms. Science, 337(6090), 72-75.

"Nonlocality is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics"
Linden, N., Popescu, S., Short, A. J., & Winter, A. (2007). Quantum nonlocality and beyond: limits from nonlocal computation. Physical review letters, 99(18), 180502.

I could go on with hundreds of these. Hence my confusion at your dismissal, particularly given your follow-up

It has not been established, the photon pair may not even be a pair.
This could matter. Not only that, but paired photons were experiments 30 years ago. We've done this with gases and multiple photons and macroscopic systems and so forth.

If you don't understand, presumably because you aren't familiar with, this topic (from EPR onwards), and in particular the kinds of empirical evidence we have and how closely it relates to realism and what Bell's inequality is, I can provide you with information. That won't fix everything, of course, because one of the reasons this particular phenomenon is important is the naunces of what is "physical" in particle and quantum physics. However, if you don't really have a grasp on the implication of what Einstein thought was so impossible and completely at odds with reality that EPR was intended to prove that QM was flawed only it turned out to be even more radical than he believed, then naturally you simply reduce it to just one more phenomenon in physics. This is a mistake.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well it appears as though the brain is a material thing that gives rise to a non-material thing, experienced consciousness.
That is a materialist viewpoint. I know in Hinduism it is believed that consciousness 'incarnates' the material.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm sure they do know what science is, you seem to be confused though.
This is why it is lucky that I have a vast amount of literature on this topic alone, and much more on modern physics in general: you need not take my word for it, I can provide you with quite literally thousands of quotes, citations, and more (recorded seminars, conferences, lab meetings, etc.) such that for any statement I can provide you with as many statements of the same made by physicists who you are "sure [that] they know what science is". I have provided several already, and apart from books (and even here there are a few exceptions, and my ability to scan pages, though this is tedious for more than a page) I can provide you with the full texts of every journal article or paper quote from or cite such that (once again) you need not take my word for it.

You could choose to trust that I know what I am talking about, particularly given the number of sources I've already provided supporting what I've said, or I can rely entirely on others' words so that you don't have to trust me at all, or you can decide not to trust me and refuse to acknowledge that what you don't understand is extremely important here and central to the OP. If the last of these, I don't understand why you bother starting such threads. Surely you can convince yourself of positions you already hold?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Well mostly the fact that it's been thoroughly established, but you're right I should have said "what evidence do you have that you are using to make this statement?" After all, the following kind of statements are replete in the literature:
"A fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics is the idea that two spatially separated objects exhibit correlations in observable physical properties that cannot be explained by any classical theory. Troubling even Einstein, this “spooky action at a distance” — known as entanglement"
Siddiqi, I., & Clarke, J. (2006). Entangled solid-state circuits. Science 313(5792), 1400.

"Entanglement is the essential feature of quantum mechanics"
Hofmann, J., Krug, M., Ortegel, N., Gérard, L., Weber, M., Rosenfeld, W., & Weinfurter, H. (2012). Heralded entanglement between widely separated atoms. Science, 337(6090), 72-75.

"Nonlocality is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics"
Linden, N., Popescu, S., Short, A. J., & Winter, A. (2007). Quantum nonlocality and beyond: limits from nonlocal computation. Physical review letters, 99(18), 180502.

I could go on with hundreds of these. Hence my confusion at your dismissal, particularly given your follow-up


This could matter. Not only that, but paired photons were experiments 30 years ago. We've done this with gases and multiple photons and macroscopic systems and so forth.

If you don't understand, presumably because you aren't familiar with, this topic (from EPR onwards), and in particular the kinds of empirical evidence we have and how closely it relates to realism and what Bell's inequality is, I can provide you with information. That won't fix everything, of course, because one of the reasons this particular phenomenon is important is the naunces of what is "physical" in particle and quantum physics. However, if you don't really have a grasp on the implication of what Einstein thought was so impossible and completely at odds with reality that EPR was intended to prove that QM was flawed only it turned out to be even more radical than he believed, then naturally you simply reduce it to just one more phenomenon in physics. This is a mistake.
How so? QM reduces to physics - however radical. Why would you insist that this causal link will not? (If thereis a causal link).
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How so? QM reduces to physics
Well, as you don't trust my words I think the opening to a SpringerBrief on this à propos:
"Whatever position one takes on the subject, quantum theory is certainly surprising in its radical break from other fields of physics. Not only does it exhibit indeterminism, but the theory entails an essential denial of objectivity, an abandonment of realism."
Hemmick, D. L., & Shakur, A. M. (2011). Bell's theorem and quantum realism: reassessment in light of the Schrödinger paradox (Springer Briefs in Physics). Springer.



If thereis a causal link
This is so fundamental to quantum physics that questioning it is extremely surprising. Yet you refuse to share what your basis for such a position might be.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Energy IS physical mate, so is force.

So could consciousness be regarded as a form of energy? The basis for it seems to be electrical and chemical energy in the brain, but I'm not sure how consciousness itself would fit into the usual classifications of energy.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How so? QM reduces to physics - however radical. Why would you insist that this causal link will not? (If thereis a causal link).
I decided to anticipate the rejection/dismissal of my initial response:
"Whatever position one takes on the subject, quantum theory is certainly surprising in its radical break from other fields of physics. Not only does it exhibit indeterminism, but the theory entails an essential denial of objectivity, an abandonment of realism."
Hemmick, D. L., & Shakur, A. M. (2011). Bell's theorem and quantum realism: reassessment in light of the Schrödinger paradox (Springer Briefs in Physics). Springer.

at least as it really isn't fair to use one source to make such a claim about a subject another isn't familiar with. However, as I wasn't asked for citations and quotations and so forth, I also don't wish to pepper you with dozens of quotations or hundreds of references, so I tried to pick a few that were
1) Accessible (I think) even to one without a background in physics
2) From peer-reviewed journals and preferably the top journals in the word
3) As concise as possible

So here goes:
“The laws of quantum physics are in conflict with a classical world, in particular, with local and macroscopic realism as characterized by the violation of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, respectively.”

Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2008). Conditions for quantum violation of macroscopic realism. Physical review letters, 101(9), 090403.


“Theories designed according to “local realism” (LR) include a set of hidden variables, which if known would predict all measurement results; however, the values of the hidden variables cannot be influenced by spacelike-separated events. In 1964, Bell constructed an inequality satisfied by all correlations accessible by LR and showed that correlations between spacelike-separated measurements on two quantum systems can violate this inequality. Since then, many experimental tests showing Bell-inequality violations have been performed. The importance of such a test is twofold. First, it shows that local realistic (LR) descriptions of bipartite quantum systems do not always exist. Second, it supports quantum information tasks such as quantum key distribution and randomness generation. Particularly in the second case, a successful test is required to reject LR with very high significance in the presence of adversarial effects.”

Zhang, Y., Glancy, S., & Knill, E. (2013). Efficient quantification of experimental evidence against local realism. Physical Review A, 88(5), 052119.


“Bell's theorem for local realism is a highly developed research field, not least because of its importance for quantum information technologies. Macroscopic realism (macrorealism) —the world view in which the properties of macroscopic objects exist independent of and are not influenced by measurement—has gained momentum only within the past few years as experiments steadily approached the parameter regime where experimental tests might become possible. Promising candidates in the race towards an experimental violation of macrorealism are large superconducting devices, heavy molecules, and quantum-optical systems in combination with atomic gases or massive objects. Still lacking a decisive experiment, however, the physics community remains to be split into two groups: adherents of the viewpoint that macrorealism will eventually be falsified by the preparation of Schrödinger catlike states, and adherents of one of the hypothetical alternatives saving a classical world on the macroscopic level”

Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2013). Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett-Garg inequalities. Physical Review A, 87(5), 052115.


“The development of quantum physics has revealed a world quite different from the one depicted by classical physics. Probably the most striking feature of the quantum world, distinguishing it from the classical one, is failure of local realism. Local realism combines two reasonably acceptable assumptions, locality and realism. The principle of locality is that distant objects cannot have direct instantaneous influence on one another. Physical realism claims that all measurement outcomes are determined by preexisting quantities of physical systems. The failure of local realism is evidenced by violation of Bell’s famous inequality which should be obeyed by any local-realistic theories.”

Jeong, H., Paternostro, M., & Ralph, T. C. (2009). Failure of local realism revealed by extremely-coarse-grained measurements. Physical review letters, 102(6), 060403.

“We report the first experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) entanglement. In the experiment, the nonstatistical GHZ conflicts between quantum mechanics and local realism are confirmed, within the experimental accuracy, by four specific measurements of polarization correlations between four photons. In addition, our experimental results also demonstrate a strong violation of Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko inequality by 76 standard deviations. Such a violation can only be attributed to genuine four-photon entanglement.”

Zhao, Z., Yang, T., Chen, Y. A., Zhang, A. N., Żukowski, M., & Pan, J. W. (2003). Experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement. Physical review letters, 91(18), 180401.

“Our study has shed some light on the persistent issue of the emergence of classical realism in closed quantum systems, specifically the breakdown of MR by the measurement process. We have shown that the principles of classical mechanics cannot describe even the measurement of macroscopic observables with a smooth classical limit.”

Leshem, A., & Gat, O. (2009). Violation of smooth observable macroscopic realism in a harmonic oscillator. Physical review letters, 103(7), 070403.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I decided to anticipate the rejection/dismissal of my initial response:
"Whatever position one takes on the subject, quantum theory is certainly surprising in its radical break from other fields of physics. Not only does it exhibit indeterminism, but the theory entails an essential denial of objectivity, an abandonment of realism."
Hemmick, D. L., & Shakur, A. M. (2011). Bell's theorem and quantum realism: reassessment in light of the Schrödinger paradox (Springer Briefs in Physics). Springer.

at least as it really isn't fair to use one source to make such a claim about a subject another isn't familiar with. However, as I wasn't asked for citations and quotations and so forth, I also don't wish to pepper you with dozens of quotations or hundreds of references, so I tried to pick a few that were
1) Accessible (I think) even to one without a background in physics
2) From peer-reviewed journals and preferably the top journals in the word
3) As concise as possible

So here goes:
“The laws of quantum physics are in conflict with a classical world, in particular, with local and macroscopic realism as characterized by the violation of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, respectively.”

Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2008). Conditions for quantum violation of macroscopic realism. Physical review letters, 101(9), 090403.


“Theories designed according to “local realism” (LR) include a set of hidden variables, which if known would predict all measurement results; however, the values of the hidden variables cannot be influenced by spacelike-separated events. In 1964, Bell constructed an inequality satisfied by all correlations accessible by LR and showed that correlations between spacelike-separated measurements on two quantum systems can violate this inequality. Since then, many experimental tests showing Bell-inequality violations have been performed. The importance of such a test is twofold. First, it shows that local realistic (LR) descriptions of bipartite quantum systems do not always exist. Second, it supports quantum information tasks such as quantum key distribution and randomness generation. Particularly in the second case, a successful test is required to reject LR with very high significance in the presence of adversarial effects.”

Zhang, Y., Glancy, S., & Knill, E. (2013). Efficient quantification of experimental evidence against local realism. Physical Review A, 88(5), 052119.


“Bell's theorem for local realism is a highly developed research field, not least because of its importance for quantum information technologies. Macroscopic realism (macrorealism) —the world view in which the properties of macroscopic objects exist independent of and are not influenced by measurement—has gained momentum only within the past few years as experiments steadily approached the parameter regime where experimental tests might become possible. Promising candidates in the race towards an experimental violation of macrorealism are large superconducting devices, heavy molecules, and quantum-optical systems in combination with atomic gases or massive objects. Still lacking a decisive experiment, however, the physics community remains to be split into two groups: adherents of the viewpoint that macrorealism will eventually be falsified by the preparation of Schrödinger catlike states, and adherents of one of the hypothetical alternatives saving a classical world on the macroscopic level”

Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2013). Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett-Garg inequalities. Physical Review A, 87(5), 052115.


“The development of quantum physics has revealed a world quite different from the one depicted by classical physics. Probably the most striking feature of the quantum world, distinguishing it from the classical one, is failure of local realism. Local realism combines two reasonably acceptable assumptions, locality and realism. The principle of locality is that distant objects cannot have direct instantaneous influence on one another. Physical realism claims that all measurement outcomes are determined by preexisting quantities of physical systems. The failure of local realism is evidenced by violation of Bell’s famous inequality which should be obeyed by any local-realistic theories.”

Jeong, H., Paternostro, M., & Ralph, T. C. (2009). Failure of local realism revealed by extremely-coarse-grained measurements. Physical review letters, 102(6), 060403.

“We report the first experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) entanglement. In the experiment, the nonstatistical GHZ conflicts between quantum mechanics and local realism are confirmed, within the experimental accuracy, by four specific measurements of polarization correlations between four photons. In addition, our experimental results also demonstrate a strong violation of Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko inequality by 76 standard deviations. Such a violation can only be attributed to genuine four-photon entanglement.”

Zhao, Z., Yang, T., Chen, Y. A., Zhang, A. N., Żukowski, M., & Pan, J. W. (2003). Experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement. Physical review letters, 91(18), 180401.

“Our study has shed some light on the persistent issue of the emergence of classical realism in closed quantum systems, specifically the breakdown of MR by the measurement process. We have shown that the principles of classical mechanics cannot describe even the measurement of macroscopic observables with a smooth classical limit.”

Leshem, A., & Gat, O. (2009). Violation of smooth observable macroscopic realism in a harmonic oscillator. Physical review letters, 103(7), 070403.
What is physics Legion? It is the study of the nature and properties of matter and energy. The causal link (if it exists), is either reducible to the properties of matter and energy or is not physics. There is no non-physical substance, force or cause implied.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
So could consciousness be regarded as a form of energy? The basis for it seems to be electrical and chemical energy in the brain, but I'm not sure how consciousness itself would fit into the usual classifications of energy.
I would see it as a product of matter and energy, rather than energy itself. Consciousness is a concept, an abstract, as opposed to a substance/material/energy.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Consciousness is a concept, an abstract, as opposed to a substance/material/energy.

I think consciousness is more than just a concept, it looks like a describable property of biological life. It would be like saying that birth and death are just concepts, because the presence or absence of consciousness is pivotal in how we describe those events.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I think consciousness is more than just a concept, it looks like a describable property of biological life. It would be like saying that birth and death are just concepts, because the presence or absence of consciousness is pivotal in how we describe those events.
Well that depends on how you define consciousness, are bacteria conscious?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Well that depends on how you define consciousness, are bacteria conscious?

I would associate consciousness with higher life forms. For simpler life forms I would talk about a degree of awareness of environment.

PS I'm copying this to the other thread on consciousness because it also seems relevant there.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I would associate consciousness with higher life forms. For simpler life forms I would talk about a degree of awareness of environment.

PS I'm copying this to the other thread on consciousness because it also seems relevant there.
Yeah no worries mate. I think we need better definitions.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The causal link (if it exists), is either reducible to the properties of matter and energy or is not physics
Reducible? Let me introduce you to a real physicist, a leader in this field, and his thoughts on reductionism (not in some speech, blog, or ideological outlet, but in college course on particle physics)


What is physics Legion? It is the study of the nature and properties of matter and energy.
No it isn't. This is quite obviously and NON-trivially so, considering that how many thousands of journal articles, conference proceedings, and similar one can read without ever coming across "matter" and given the disparate and mutually exclusive ways in which energy is defined, not to mention the fact that a large amount of physics cannot fit into this neat little box you've made. An enormous amount of work in physics is procedural:
full


Where do you see matter there?
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
I keep trying to find a description so clear that you can't possibly continue to think the above true. Here's one:
"Our experiment demonstrates a violation of Bell inequalities with photons more than 10 km apart"
Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Zbinden, H., & Gisin, N. (1998). Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart. Physical Review Letters, 81(17), 3563.

Now, again I have the paper if you want it, but think about this. First, the word is photons, plural, not photon. Second, what is the point of having two labs 10+ km apart if you only collapse one photon?
"Using a telecommunications fiber network, the photons are then analyzed by all-fiber interferometers located 10.9 km apart from one another in the small villages of Bellevue and Bernex, respectively"
(ibid)

To play it safe, here's another quote that should be so obvious that it becomes impossible to assert that your description is accurate:
"an entangled state of two photons can be created such that each single photon is unpolarized...Such effects are not only interesting from a fundamental point of view: If the two entangled particles are shared between two distant parties, the perfect quantum correlations can be used to realize a so-called quantum channel over which quantum information can be transmitted."
Volz, J. & Rauschenbeutel, A. (2012). Two Atoms Announce Their Long-Distance Relationship. Science, 337(40), 40-41.

And finally:
"The key concept is quantum entanglement, where two systems (which may be well-separated in space) are described by a quantum state that, loosely speaking, cannot be “broken down” into two separated quantum states for each individual system. Entangled states encapsulate quantum correlations between the two systems. Such correlations often embody entirely new physical properties for the composite system that are not present in any of the two individual subsystems. We may say that these subsystems have lost their individuality, in the sense that physical properties are now at least partially encapsulated in the nonlocal quantum correlations and therefore cannot be attributed to only one of the subsystems. Broadly speaking, we may thus conclude that quantum entanglement represents a situation where the quantum-mechanical whole is different from the sum of its parts." (emphasis added)
Schlosshauer, M. A. (2007). Decoherence: and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer.


"Here, “macroscopic entanglement” should be intended as the entanglement between macroscopically distinguishable states"
Lim, Y., Paternostro, M., Kang, M., Lee, J., & Jeong, H. (2012). Using macroscopic entanglement to close the detection loophole in Bell-inequality tests. Physical Review A, 85(6), 062112.

I think you are just confused by referring to more complicated experiments. In the simpler experiments, it is clearly as I say, and the more complicated experiments still have the basic logic of the simpler experiments.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think you are just confused by referring to more complicated experiments. In the simpler experiments, it is clearly as I say, and the more complicated experiments still have the basic logic of the simpler experiments.
I gave you a screen shot from the very first one. I provided you with basis for it that is one of the most famous papers in physics written decades before the first experiment. I provided you with another early experiment from some ~20 years ago. And I provided you with descriptions fro physics monographs and journals. You have repeated what you said. That's not evidence for your position. In fact, given the mounting evidence against your position, it's just odd. Your description runs counter to one of the most studied and fundamental components of quantum mechanics. If you don't believe that, ok. I'm done trying to help you learn and provide you with the materials to do so.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
I gave you a screen shot from the very first one. I provided you with basis for it that is one of the most famous papers in physics written decades before the first experiment. I provided you with another early experiment from some ~20 years ago. And I provided you with descriptions fro physics monographs and journals. You have repeated what you said. That's not evidence for your position. In fact, given the mounting evidence against your position, it's just odd. Your description runs counter to one of the most studied and fundamental components of quantum mechanics. If you don't believe that, ok. I'm done trying to help you learn and provide you with the materials to do so.

I assume you know the simple double slit experiments, and then the complications thereof to counterfactual measurements. That is the standard way in which it is explained to lay people.
 
Top