What have you learnt today?

[Husar]

But Einstein was proven wrong just last month!
http://www.livescience.com/50262-spo...n-is-real.html

As for your link, too many formulas, I can deal with explanations but formulas freak me out, I do not always find the transformation from model to formula easily understandable either, it could be wrong for all I know.

[Montmorency]

It's the same problem of erroneous assumptions or fallacies leading to the only interpretation that can be generated - based on those erroneous assumptions and fallacies.

Basically similar to:

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Obviously, that's just the mathematical equivalent of sophistry. The problems with backers of entanglement as real is that they do not realize that Bell's Inequalities:

1. Are predicated on some sense of "freedom".
2. Where is "space-time"? What does Bell's universe have to do with Einstein's universe? See the previously-linked article, as well as:

Hess, K., De Raedt, H. A., and Michielsen, K. (2012). Hidden assumptions in the derivation of the theorem of Bell.

[Montmorency]

And some physicists will try to BS their way out of this by ignoring it entirely or by claiming that they don't like to treat with philosophy, or something along those lines, even though such a claim is self-contradictory at every step - by such reasoning they would have to discard all of their own precious work...

[Montmorency]

I'll make this even stronger judgement:

Contemporary quantum theory of superposition, entanglement, etc. is well-supported by decades of evidence in the same way that Ptolemy's model of epicycles in the geocentric universe was.

Accumulate all the mathematical derivations you like; if they're based on incorrect fundamentals, then they're garbage in the end.

A massive ball of duct tape with a cavity at its center is still hollow, a shell.

We need to fall back and reorganize. There's still been a lot of good work done, particularly with particles and field theory. The Standard Model is sound.

[Ibrahim]

OK, I just learned that cutting edge physics are way beyond my ability to understand quickly

[Montmorency]

Interesting.

To recap, violations of Bell's Inequalities by local hidden-variable statistical models as opposed to Copenhagen entanglement concepts have led to a flawed consensus view that quantum non-localities are ultimately entailed given most sets of assumptions.

Now, though, I've found a paper that throws a wedge between both positions.

As argued at the end of subsection II B and subsection III C, since action is evaluated in
configuration space instead of in ordinary space, then the random fluctuation of infinitesimal
stationary action with respect to the whole ‘system+apparatus’ is not separable into the
fluctuation pertaining to the system and that pertaining to the apparatus. This is explicitly
reflected in the inseparability of wave function of Eqs. (48) or (60). Like the corresponding
classical model, here the atomic degree of freedom plays the role as the apparatus. The
total wave function becomes entangled due to interaction. The whole system+apparatus
must then be regarded as a single unanalyzable whole, both fluctuates together inseparably.
Hence, unlike measurement in classical mechanics discussed in the previous section in which
the interaction Hamiltonian conserves the relevant component of the angular momentum of
the particle being measured, in the statistical model, the same component of the angular
momentum prior to measurement is inevitably disturbed.

Hence, since entanglement and Born’s rule are responsible for the quantum mechanical
violation of Bell’s inequalities and the former are emergent within the local-causal statistical
model satisfying Bell’s locality assumption, then nonlocality must not be blamed as the
source of violation. Moreover, since the predictions of quantum mechanics is confirmed
very accurately by numerous experiments, neglecting all the complexities that might arise
due various potential experimental loopholes, one may conclude that Nature does not use
nonlocality to violate the Bell’s inequalities.

The basic idea seems to be:

Local hidden-variable models actually predict entanglement, but not non-local entanglement, so the violation of Bell's Inequalities by hidden-variable models cannot be used to argue for the existence of quantum non-localities.


My confusion is that, I can't understand how the concept of "emergent" entanglement in the paper relates to the standard descriptions of entanglement I've read about and seen argued against.



But either this way (this post) or that (posts above), it seems the idea of non-local causation is completely unfounded.

[Husar]

There are a number of problems I have with this:

1) Who is Bell?
1b) Who is Born?
1c) Who is Hamilton?
2) statistics
2b) mathematics
3) what's an entanglement in this context?
4) can time bend space if it pulls really hard?
5) not much time to read up on it in English (what I learnt in school was in German of course and I was always bad at expressing the phenomenon in numbers/mathematics even then)

[SwordsMaster]

Thanks Montmorency, that was actually quite interesting. I remembered very little physics, and that made me go back and do a bit of reading. Still don't understand much of it.

Another - not so much a learning as an experience: I found somehow that many 2nd/3rd world countries on the tropical belt smell very similarly. Not sure why, but Lagos airport, and Guatemala airport, for example, smell the same. Also have no aircon, which they could definitely use. Anyone else noticed this?

As an exercise in self-improvement have been doing stuff with my weak hand: showering, brushing teeth, writing, eating, etc.

[Gilrandir]

As for your link, too many formulas, I can deal with explanations but formulas freak me out, I do not always find the transformation from model to formula easily understandable either, it could be wrong for all I know.

There is a joke: One student is reading a book. Another comes and asks: "What are you reading?" The first replies: "This is quantum physics and I have an exam in it tomorrow". The second says: "But you are holding the book upside down". The first goes: "It doesn't really matter".

[SwordsMaster]

Sunlight is the best remedy against jet-lag. Go to sleep in darkness and you will wake up naturally once the sun is up.

[Visor]

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
this should equal (a-b) = 0/(a-b)
which equals (a-b)(a-b)=0
not 1(a+b)=0

?

monty?

[Husar]

But isn't 0/(a-b) with a=b=1 effectively 0/0 and therefore not defined? (same for the other side of the equation of course)
It's just changed to be 0 here, but a division through(by?) zero is not defined.
You have to stick with:
(a-b)(a+b) = 0, which is a true statement since it is effectively (1-1)(1+1) = 0 or 0 * 2 = 0.

[Montmorency]

(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
this should equal (a-b) = 0/(a-b)

No, the (a-b) on the left numerator and the (a-b) on the left denominator cancel each other out.

Maybe you mixed up the operator signs?

[Husar]

No, the (a-b) on the left numerator and the (a-b) on the left denominator cancel each other out.

Maybe you mixed up the operator signs?

You still can't turn 0/(1-1) into just 0 because 0/0 is not defined.

I even have super serious scientific proof: https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/d...g-by-zero.html