Jump to content

Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory,

 

At no time in this thread have I said anything about mainstream interpretations of Bell's theorem.  

 

The point I am making and which you haven't addressed is this one.

 

If your alternative physics hidden-variable theory were true, then the spin of widely-separated particles would remain in opposition to one another.

 

But no Bell test ever performed has ever found this.  

 

The data taken over decades of testing indicates that all local hidden-variable theories are wrong.

 

As such, you need not repeat yourself any further by alluding to faulty interpretations of any kind.

 

Where you need to apply yourself is to find a flaw or fault with the Bell test itself or with the data taken during these tests.

 

Can you do that without falling back on the device of faulty interpretation?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Bell's theorem relates to his maths and does not involve any of his own experiments. They are called Bell's inequalities. Bell's theorem also involves certain assumptions of QM believed to be valid, but cannot be tested.

 

"If your alternative physics hidden-variable theory were true, then the spin of widely-separated particles would remain in opposition to one another."

 

I don't understand your quote above. You may not understand the meaning of quantum entanglement since I explained how it happens according to alternative physics. But since  I agree with the mainstream definition of particle entanglement. Here it is:

 

https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

 

"The data taken over decades of testing indicates that all local hidden-variable theories are wrong."

 

Your statement above is incorrect. Bell himself in his disclaimers, and loopholes realized by others, do not include certain conditions or alternative hidden variable theory, only the known mainstream versions of the theory were considered.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

 

Disclaimer: For lurkers and others I must give the disclaimer that what I am explaining concerning Quantum Mechanics in this thread is sometimes not mainstream physics theory but instead is an alternative to it. Here is the mainstream version and explanation:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We may as well have a discussion on record of what this experiment (and related experiments) actually entails as a more serious, science minded discussion:     

Walter, I'd like a Coors Light and a basket of wings.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Bell's theorem relates to his maths and does not involve any of his own experiments. They are called Bell's inequalities. Bell's theorem also involves certain assumptions of QM believed to be valid, but cannot be tested.

 

Pantheory, the issue between us does not involve any assumptions or the testing of them.

 

Nor do we need to go into the interpretations of anything.

 

You claim that in your theory the spin of two widely separated particles will always be found to be opposite each other.

 

This condition is exactly what the Bell test was designed to test.

 

Do two widely separated particles always have opposite spins?

 

For your theory to be confirmed the tests would have to show that they always do.

 

But the Bell tests do not always show this.

 

Therefore, your claim is false and your theory is falsified by the evidence.

 

It's that simple.

 

Remember how you said things were simple enough for a barmaid to understand?

 

 

Quote

"

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory, the issue between us does not involve any assumptions or the testing of them.

 

Nor do we need to go into the interpretations of anything.

 

You claim that in your theory the spin of two widely separated particles will always be found to be opposite each other.

 

This condition is exactly what the Bell test was designed to test.

 

Do two widely separated particles always have opposite spins?

 

For your theory to be confirmed the tests would have to show that they always do.

 

But the Bell tests do not always show this.

 

Therefore, your claim is false and your theory is falsified by the evidence.

 

It's that simple.

 

Remember how you said things were simple enough for a barmaid to understand?

 

 

 

 

No, it appears you are misinterpreting the meaning of quantum entanglement. When two electrons are entangled, as I explained, they will always have the opposite spin to each other as Bell's theorem and mine both assert, no matter how far apart you send them. The difference in Quantum Mechanics is that this effect seems amazing based upon QM assumptions, but in the model I am explaining this effect is simple barmaid physics, nothing complicated about it at all.

 

As I explained above, when two electrons get very close to each other one will flip 180 degrees relative to the other so that their spins and electrical charges do not interfere with each other. This is the meaning of quantum entanglement concerning electrons and other fermions. Quantum theory cannot explain what is happening when electrons are entangled. To them entanglement is simply an amazing characteristic.

 

For the entangled state of two electrons, "the correlation will always be zero, no matter how the apparatus as a whole is oriented in space and no matter how far away from each other the two filters are located.  If one observer measures the spin to be "up" along an arbitrary direction, then the other observer will measure it down along the same direction.  Some properties of the two entangled electrons are inextricably linked to each other, even if the electrons are .." sent very long distances.

 

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 3/entangled_electrons.htm

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantheory said:

 

No, it appears you are misinterpreting the meaning of quantum entanglement. When two particles are entangled as I explained, they will always have the opposite spin to them as Bell's theorem and mine predict, no matter how far apart you send them. The difference in Quantum Mechanics is that this effect seems amazing based upon QM assumptions, but in the model I am explaining this effect is simple barmaid physics, nothing complicated about it at all.

 

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 3/entangled_electrons.htm

 

 

No.  You've got the wrong end of the stick, Pantheory.

 

I am calling your attention to VIOLATIONS of Bell's theorem.

 

Every Bell test has shown that his theorem (and yours) DO NOT predict what is actually observed.

 

For Bells theorem (and yours) to be confirmed every Bell test would have to show that entangled particles ALWAYS have opposite spin.

 

But no Bell test EVER shows this.

 

Therefore, Bell's theorem (and yours) are violated.

 

Particles with opposite spin are NOT always observed.

 

But you claim that they MUST be for your theory to be viable.

 

There is no misinterpretation on my part.

 

You set the conditions and the Bell test NEVER satisfies them.

 

It's that simple.

 

Do you get it now?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

No.  You've got the wrong end of the stick, Pantheory.

 

I am calling your attention to VIOLATIONS of Bell's theorem.

 

Every Bell test has shown that his theorem (and yours) DO NOT predict what is actually observed.

 

For Bells theorem (and yours) to be confirmed every Bell test would have to show that entangled particles ALWAYS have opposite spin.

 

But no Bell test EVER shows this.

 

Therefore, Bell's theorem (and yours) are violated.

 

Particles with opposite spin are NOT always observed.

 

But you claim that they MUST be for your theory to be viable.

 

There is no misinterpretation on my part.

 

You set the conditions and the Bell test NEVER satisfies them.

 

It's that simple.

 

Do you get it now?

 

 

Much of what I have explained relates to violations of Bell's theorem. You need to be specific concerning which aspect of Bell's theorem you think that I have not covered. I know this is difficult for you since it's not your field of expertise, but unless you can do so we cannot communicate in that I can't answer specifics if you can't provide specifics concerning which aspect of Bell's theorem you want me to provide further explanations or clarification.

 

"Particles with opposite spin are NOT always observed."

 

Yes they are for entangled electrons,

 

"If one observer measures the spin to be "up" along an arbitrary direction, then the other observer will measure it down along the same direction.  Some properties of the two entangled electrons are inextricably linked to each other ...."

 

One always has spin up and the other always has spin down unless another particle interferes along the electrons transit to its observation. Please see link to find the quote directly above  concerning certainty of observations.

 

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 3/entangled_electrons.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link, Pantheory.

 

In 1964 J.S. Bell showed that the assumption of hidden variables is inconsistent with the outcome of the above described experiment.  If there were hidden variables, we would have to observe the light flashing the same color more than 50% of the time.  We will examine at a simple version of Bell's thought experiment in an in-class activity.

 

The violation of what Bell said should happen if there were hidden variables is exactly what every Bell test has shown.

 

The value obtained when averaging all of the experimental runs on the Bell tests is always lower than 50%.

 

Not higher.

 

Not at 50%.

 

Always lower.

 

Therefore, there are no hidden variables.

 

Therefore it is wrong to assume that these hidden variables exist.

 

That assumption is inconsistent with the outcome of Bell's experiment.

 

The assumption of local reality is shown to be false.

 

Here's some links for you that make the case.

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-bells-theorem-2699344

These Bell inequalities are violated by quantum physics experiments, which means that one of his basic assumptions had to be false, and there were only two assumptions that fit the bill - either physical reality or locality was failing.

 

https://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

You will recall the we discussed proofs by negation. The fact that our final form of Bell's inequality is experimentally violated indicates that at least one of the three assumptions we have made have been shown to be wrong.

You will also recall that earlier we pointed out that the theorem and its experimental tests have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. However, the fact that Quantum Mechanics correctly predicts the correlations that are experimentally observed indicates that the theory too violates at least one of the three assumptions.

Finally, as we stated, Bell's original proof was in terms of hidden variable theories. His assumptions were:

  1. Logic is valid.
  2. Hidden variables exist.
  3. Hidden variables are local.

Most people, including me, view the assumption of local hidden variables as very similar to the assumption of a local reality.

 

https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem/Probability

A Bell's theorem experiment establishes that nature violates Bell's inequality.

Bell's theorem is a proof by contradiction, or something that seems to "prove" something that is not true, presumably because the theorem is based on false assumption(s).

 

Since Bell's theorem is violated by experiment, we must seek a false assumption that would render the theorem invalid.

 

https://opencurve.info/quantum-entanglement-the-epr-paradox-and-bells-theorem/

In all tests, all versions of Bell’s inequalities were violated. Instead, the statistical outcome was congruent with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The conclusion has to be that Einstein’s local hidden variable theory was incorrect. There is nothing local about measuring entangled particles.

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-realism-and-bell-locality.989951/

 

Experimentally the Bell inequalities are violated, which means that no model that has the factorizability property can account for the experimental results. So clearly that form of "locality" has been disproven.

is it possible that Bell locality does not accurately reflect reality?

It is not only possible but it is a fact. There are many experiments that show that the consequences of Bell locality (in the sense you use the term) are violated.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WalterP,

 

"The violation of what Bell said should happen if there were hidden variables, is exactly what every Bell test has shown.

 

The value obtained when averaging all of the experimental runs on the Bell tests is always lower than 50%.

 

Not higher.

 

Not at 50%.

 

Always lower.

 

Therefore, there are no hidden variables."

 

You need to provide a link for your quotes above so that I could know what experiments or assertions of QM you are referring to and what hidden variable theory is being considered.

 

"The conclusion has to be that Einstein's local hidden variable theory was incorrect."

 

Remember Einstein/  Rosen's proposal could not involve a physical background field as  I propose since Einstein proposed the non-existence of such background fields in his theory of Special Relativity. Since then however at least two such fields have been discovered, and many more have been proposed such as the zero point field, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam, the quantum substrate, gravitons etc.

 

So there definitely are background fields that could interact with quantum particles, therefore one or more of these field interactions with matter could certainly be the local hidden variables of QM experiments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to be a little patient with me, Pantheory.

 

The next three days will be entirely given over to accompanying my wife on a long trip to see a specialist consultant, where we will discuss her options regarding surgery or therapy.  This is nothing serious or life-threatening, but the mobility issues she faces require us to deal with this sooner rather than later.

 

I hope you will understand.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, WalterP said:

You will have to be a little patient with me, Pantheory.

 

The next three days will be entirely given over to accompanying my wife on a long trip to see a specialist consultant, where we will discuss her options regarding surgery or therapy.  This is nothing serious or life-threatening, but the mobility issues she faces require us to deal with this sooner rather than later.

 

I hope you will understand.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

Of course. All the best for you both, best regards,  Forrest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Pantheory.

 

I have some news.  

 

We're not looking at major surgery and an extended period of therapy and recuperation after that.  Instead, keyhole surgery looks like the best option, which will mean a correspondingly shorter period of recovery for Audrey.  The next step, what with Covid regulations, is to pin down a date for her operation.  Things are still in a state of flux though, because our government is considering its options on how to relax the regs in careful way.  Whatever they decide, the hospitals are duty bound to follow.

 

On the other front, I can report that I have plenty of material for us to go through, when we resume this thread properly.  (Possibly Monday?)  

 

I've had a lot of time on my hands recently and re-reading and re-thinking our dialogue and the concepts involved has lead me to two significant conclusions.

 

I'll discuss these with you when the time is right.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're not looking at major surgery and an extended period of therapy and recuperation after that.  Instead, keyhole surgery looks like the best option, which will mean a correspondingly shorter period of recovery for Audrey."

 

That sounds a lot better than a more involved surgery. Talk to you again when you have time.

 

I wish your wife the best, regards  Forrest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Pantheory.

 

The first of the two conclusions I mentioned concerns something I wrote earlier in this thread.

 

At our macroscopic level no physical influence can travel faster than the speed of light between two separate locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

A change in one photon cause an instantaneous change in another one, over a thousand kilometres away.

 Which violates our macroscopic understanding of cause-and-effect.

 

I mistakenly took this to mean that the spin of two widely separated particles could not be the opposite of each other. 

 

I misunderstood this and took it to mean that one particle would change the spin of the other.

 

This is simply wrong and so was I.  Further reading has caused me to see my error.  You were and are correct, when it comes to the opposite spins of entangled, widely separated particles, Pantheory.  They do display opposite directions of spin.

So, I’m going to retract this.

 

However, I must now come on to the second of my conclusions.

 

I’ve concluded that we need to carefully check to see if I am understanding you correctly. 

 

Up until our break from this thread I was working on the understanding that your theory says that widely separated events could not be connected in any way, faster than the speed of light.

 

Your description of the wave-like nature of light travelling in opposite directions seemed to indicate that. 

 

So, could you please confirm that this is so? 

 

Or, if I’m in error, could you please correct me so that I can know with certainty what your theory says about widely separated events.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the explanations and understandings the double slit experiment and other quantum mechanic events are relatively simple to understand as I have stated above, then why won't mainstream quantum physicists consider such ideas and explanations.? I believe the answer to this question involves psychology, sociology, as well as quantum physics, and therefore is speculative.

 

First of all there is the topic of Groupthink. Scientists in general don't like to propose outside-the-box explanations that would be considered contrary to mainstream theory for fear of criticism. In this case a background field that would contain local hidden variables would be contrary to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and also contrary to well accepted principles of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum theories.

 

Another main problem with non-mainstream explanations IMO was expressed very well by Max Planck many years ago. Here is his quote.

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/max-planck-quotes

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

Max Planck  (circa 1920's.


Planck's idea here is that once a theory in physics becomes well-accepted and entrenched in theoretical thinking, nearly all such physicists will have invested a great deal of time with the existing mainstream theory, and to change such a theory could negate much of their life's work, so they will always be reluctant to even consider such ideas. Once these theorists die and a young group of physics come along, these new physicists can appraise new ideas against the old using the balance scale of logic.

 

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken."
 
The operative definition of an expert … someone who doesn’t make small mistakes.
 
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Richard Feynman
 
A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
 
The most dangerous tendency of the modern world is the way in which bogus theories are given the force of dogma.
 
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
 
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas (theory) rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.
 
If there ever was a misnomer, it is “exact science.” Science has always been full of mistakes. The present day is no exception. And our mistakes are good mistakes; (But they may)... require a genius to correct. Of course, we do not see our own mistakes.
 
It has often been said that to make discoveries one must be ignorant. This opinion, mistaken in itself, nevertheless conceals a truth. It means that it is better to know nothing than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek, neglecting meanwhile everything that fails to agree with them.
 
Looking back … over the long and labyrinthine path which finally led to the discovery [of the quantum theory], I am vividly reminded of Goethe’s saying that men will always be making mistakes as long as they are striving after something.

 

Science is properly more scrupulous than dogma (theory). Dogma gives a charter to mistake, but the very breath of science is a contest with mistake, and must keep the conscience alive.
 
What is the evidence for such a background field. We know of one which we call the zero-point-field and we theorize others such as the Higgs field and dark matter. These are proposed to exist at quantum scales, but if they exist at the smallest scales then they must also exist, and are likely to be detectable at the largest scales of the universe. What is the evidence for this?
 
Here is a recent science paper I have coauthored explaining strong evidence for the existence of such a background field at universe scales:
 
 
 

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/max-planck-quotes
Link to post
Share on other sites

walterP,

“Hello Pantheory.

……..I’ve concluded that we need to carefully check to see if I am understanding you correctly.  Up until our break from this thread I was working on the understanding that your theory says that widely separated events could not be connected in any way, faster than the speed of light.

Remember in my related theory everything in reality is very simple to understand therefore there could be no connection between particles unless they are entangled, no faster-than-light communication. But if entangled they will always have opposite spins unrelated to their distances apart. They can be entangled by being very close to each other in the first place as I have explained. Therefore from the start, before any journey, they will always have the opposite spin if entangled. The test of their entanglement is their opposite spins.

  “Your description of the wave-like nature of light traveling in opposite directions seemed to indicate that.”

Light is always a spherical wave from a single bulb source unless otherwise obstructed. Again, it’s obvious and also mainstream physics.  

“ So, could you please confirm that this is so?  Or, if I’m in error, could you please correct me so that I can know with certainty what your theory says about widely separated events…….”

Yes, you are correct in your related understanding. Again, this can be called barmaid physics because of the theory's simplicity and my explanations of it. Still, the interested person or barmaid will usually ask questions as you have done to better understand this simple physics theory being presented. I believe I have answered all your questions, but if you think not, please keep asking :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, pantheory said:

If the explanations and understandings the double slit experiment and other quantum mechanic events are relatively simple to understand as I have stated above, then why won't mainstream quantum physicists consider such ideas and explanations.? I believe the answer to this question involves psychology, sociology, as well as quantum physics, and therefore is speculative.

 

First of all there is the topic of Groupthink. Scientists in general don't like to propose outside-the-box explanations that would be considered contrary to mainstream theory for fear of criticism. In this case a background field that would contain local hidden variables would be contrary to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and also contrary to well accepted principles of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum theories.

 

Another main problem with non-mainstream explanations IMO was expressed very well by Max Planck many years ago. Here is his quote.

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/max-planck-quotes

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

Max Planck  (circa 1920's.


Planck's idea here is that once a theory in physics becomes well-accepted and entrenched in theoretical thinking, nearly all such physicists will have invested a great deal of time with the existing mainstream theory, and to change such a theory could negate much of their life's work, so they will always be reluctant to even consider such ideas. Once these theorists die and a young group of physics come along, these new physicists can appraise new ideas against the old using the balance scale of logic.

 

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken."
 
The operative definition of an expert … someone who doesn’t make small mistakes.
 
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Richard Feynman
 
A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
 
The most dangerous tendency of the modern world is the way in which bogus theories are given the force of dogma.
 
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
 
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas (theory) rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.
 
If there ever was a misnomer, it is “exact science.” Science has always been full of mistakes. The present day is no exception. And our mistakes are good mistakes; (But they may)... require a genius to correct. Of course, we do not see our own mistakes.
 
It has often been said that to make discoveries one must be ignorant. This opinion, mistaken in itself, nevertheless conceals a truth. It means that it is better to know nothing than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek, neglecting meanwhile everything that fails to agree with them.
 
Looking back … over the long and labyrinthine path which finally led to the discovery [of the quantum theory], I am vividly reminded of Goethe’s saying that men will always be making mistakes as long as they are striving after something.

 

Science is properly more scrupulous than dogma (theory). Dogma gives a charter to mistake, but the very breath of science is a contest with mistake, and must keep the conscience alive.
 
What is the evidence for such a background field. We know of one which we call the zero-point-field and we theorize others such as the Higgs field and dark matter. These are proposed to exist at quantum scales, but if they exist at the smallest scales then they must also exist, and are likely to be detectable at the largest scales of the universe. What is the evidence for this?
 
Here is a recent science paper I have coauthored explaining strong evidence for the existence of such a background field at universe scales:
 
 
 

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/max-planck-quotes

 

That's quite a hefty post, Pantheory.

 

But it's a bit wide of the mark, for at least two reasons.

 

Firstly, as you will no doubt recall, my avowed position when it comes to supporting any particular theory is one of strict noncommittal.  I try to hold to a wait-and-see policy.  Therefore, I cannot hold anything amounting to a dogma or belief when it comes to science matters.  

 

Secondly, the immediate issue under discussion between us is the Bell test.  So far in this thread I haven't written anything either for or against the existence of background fields of any kind.  But if you are so minded Pantheory, we can go on to do so.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pantheory said:

walterP,

“Hello Pantheory.

……..I’ve concluded that we need to carefully check to see if I am understanding you correctly.  Up until our break from this thread I was working on the understanding that your theory says that widely separated events could not be connected in any way, faster than the speed of light.

Remember in my related theory everything in reality is very simple to understand therefore there could be no connection between particles unless they are entangled, no faster-than-light communication. But if entangled they will always have opposite spins unrelated to their distances apart. They can be entangled by being very close to each other in the first place as I have explained. Therefore from the start, before any journey, they will always have the opposite spin if entangled. The test of their entanglement is their opposite spins.

  “Your description of the wave-like nature of light traveling in opposite directions seemed to indicate that.”

Light is always a spherical wave from a single bulb source unless otherwise obstructed. Again, it’s obvious and also mainstream physics.  

“ So, could you please confirm that this is so?  Or, if I’m in error, could you please correct me so that I can know with certainty what your theory says about widely separated events…….”

Yes, you are correct in your related understanding. Again, this can be called barmaid physics because of the theory's simplicity and my explanations of it. Still, the interested person or barmaid will usually ask questions as you have done to better understand this simple physics theory being presented. I believe I have answered all your questions, but if you think not, please keep asking :)

 

Thank you for this succinct reply, Pantheory.

 

What you describe seems to be very close to or exactly the assumption of Local Realism.

 

That is, whatever is particular to a given location can have no superluminal connection to what is particular to another location.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

The 1935 EPR paper condensed the philosophical discussion into a physical argument. The authors claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement is known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", that determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are, in modern terminology, local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may, again in modern terminology, only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime (i.e., the past). These claims are founded on assumptions about nature that constitute what is now known as local realism.

 

The reason I'm keen to clarify just where you stand is because the Bell test is designed to test the assumption of local realism.

 

Therefore, if you hold to Local Realism, the results of the test over the last forty or so years should be of vital interest to you.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two links about the Bell test, Pantheory.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm   This one is up to date.

 

https://theworld.com/~reinhold/bellsinequalities.html  This one dates from 1987, but was updated in 1996 and 1998.

 

The advantage of these is that they are both couched in non-technical language, use the minimum of math and they also have the minimum to say about the interpretation of the results.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Thank you for this succinct reply, Pantheory.

 

What you describe seems to be very close to or exactly the assumption of Local Realism.

 

That is, whatever is particular to a given location can have no superluminal connection to what is particular to another location.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

The 1935 EPR paper condensed the philosophical discussion into a physical argument. The authors claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement is known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", that determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are, in modern terminology, local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may, again in modern terminology, only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime (i.e., the past). These claims are founded on assumptions about nature that constitute what is now known as local realism.

 

The reason I'm keen to clarify just where you stand is because the Bell test is designed to test the assumption of local realism.

 

Therefore, if you hold to Local Realism, the results of the test over the last forty or so years should be of vital interest to you.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Walter, as I discussed and explained before, Einstein-Rosen could not make a proper proposal of local hidden variables because Einstein proposed the non-existence of background fields in his Special Theory of Relativity.

 

What Bell showed was that based upon the Einstein-Rosen proposal that quantum entanglement and the related results cannot be explained by that hypothesis. But again it can easily be explained by the existence of a background field, the details of which I have explained in this thread many times. 

 

It is best not use any mainstream wordings such as  "local realism" and others since all such wordings have exact meanings which are contrary to what I am explaining to you. The correct wording is the existence of a "background field" which explains local hidden variables. I think it's almost impossible to logically deny that neither the zero point field, the Higgs field, dark matter, the quantum substrate, incoherent light waves, etc. etc., that none could interact in quantum experiments. If one of more do then they would be local hidden variables.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Here are two links about the Bell test, Pantheory.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm   This one is up to date.

 

https://theworld.com/~reinhold/bellsinequalities.html  This one dates from 1987, but was updated in 1996 and 1998.

 

The advantage of these is that they are both couched in non-technical language, use the minimum of math and they also have the minimum to say about the interpretation of the results.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Again, Bell's experiment only deals with the Einstein-Rosen proposal and does not, and could not consider the existence of a background field since it has not been a mainstream proposal for more than 100 years, even though we have proof for the existence of a number of them.  This is one of the main reasons why quantum physics cannot come up with any theory that seems logical IMO. Nearly all have forgotten the cornerstone of physics, and especially barmaid physics. It is the bedrock foundation stone for all of science,  Logic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

You've declared that your theory disallows any superluminal connections between separate locations.

 

So isn't that an assumption of local hidden variables, by another name?

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, then let me rephrase my question.

 

You've declared that your theory disallows any superluminal connections between separate locations.

 

So isn't that the use of local hidden variables, by another name?

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

For the sake of brevity, please do not repeat or include any further references to your personal views on QM, Pantheory.

 

5 hours ago I made it quite plain that my position is regard QM is neutral and undeclared.

 

So you will be wasting your own time and effort if you continue down this road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Very well, then let me rephrase my question.

 

You've declared that your theory disallows any superluminal connections between separate locations.

 

So isn't that the use of local hidden variables, by another name?

 

Walter.

 

 

Edit:

 

For the sake of brevity, please do not repeat or include any further references to your personal views on QM, Pantheory.

 

5 hours ago I made it quite plain that my position is regard QM is neutral and undeclared.

 

So you will be wasting your own time and effort if you continue down this road.

"So isn't that the use of local hidden variables, by another name?"

 

Yes it is. The name is called an "omni-present backgroung field."

 

Such fields as the ZPF, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy etc. etc. are all obviously local hidden variables, unless one can explain why none of them could possibly be involved and interfere with the quantum world and related experiments.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pantheory said:

"So isn't that the use of local hidden variables, by another name?"

 

Yes it is. The name is called an "omni-present backgroung field."

 

Such fields as the ZPF, the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy etc. etc. are all obviously local hidden variables, unless one can explain why none of them could possibly be involved and interfere with the quantum world and related experiments.
 

 

And what is the Bell test designed to test if not the assumption (or use of) hidden variables?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, poci said:

 

The problem with this link in our discussion is that I am explaining a far simpler interpretation of this experiment based upon alternative theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.