Disproving the quantum revolution?

[phyllo]

Are you two going to say anything of substance on this thread or should Faust just lock it?

[Calrid]

@phyllo

Are you two going to say anything of substance on this thread or should Faust just lock it?

Well yes, because these guys are all mouth and no trousers.

Flannel shut up and stop talking, you have not the first clue what you are banging on about.

The whole point of science is to distinguish yourself, the fact MWI cannot be distinguished in an empirical way from Copenhagen is precisely why it is not a theoretical concern any more than Copenhagen is. I’m saying in order to prove reality bifurcates into magic kingdoms given any measurement even sound half baked, requires the actual existence of them empirically. If you can’t prove MWI is what is going on what is the point of it? At least Copenhagen is honest and says there is no classical description of what is going on. Unfortunately MWI relies on maths as proof like String “theory” neither of which are actually scientifically testable.

MWI claims to be local and non hidden, something I dispute because basically they can’t prove it. So in effect since the realities are hidden from scrutiny and locally undetectable, the theory is neither. In fact it’s a complete non sequitur really if something exists then it could be this way but we can never know it does is all very well if you are doodling nonsense maths while waiting for CERN to fire up but it is unlikely to win you a Nobel Prize, thank Christ.

[Calrid]

@Flannel Jesus

Dude, the way you talk about this stuff is just even more proof that you don’t know what it means.

I don’t have to prove Many Worlds any more than you have to prove Copenhagen. You’re the one claiming Bell proved it wrong, and then backing down on that, so I’ve already won. That makes you (tee hee) the LOSER.

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

[Moreno]

@James S Saint

Probably the quintessential argument against QM in general is the well known double slit experiment.

To be fussy, the experiment is not an argument.

QM’s explanation effort toward that experiment can’t avoid magical or mystical properties such as a particle being in two locations at once.

That’s not really the main explanation.

The Quantum Magi obviously had no comprehension of what it means to exist as is evident throughout their mysticism style speculations such as “quantum superposition”.

And your explanation of the results of the double slit experiment is?

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Calrid

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

Jesus you’re so inconsistent you can’t even keep straight what it is you did and didn’t say.

“The Bell’s-Aspect experiment shows that any deterministic local model will not explain quantum mechanics phenomena.”
You brought this up in the context of a discussion of Many Worlds and Determinism. I don’t know why you even brought it up if you didn’t think it refuted Many Worlds. Are you now saying that you were just making irrelevant posts? Those are the two options: you were making irrelevant posts or you were making incorrect posts. Which one is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were saying something actually relevant, but if after all this time you’re going to say that you were just saying nonsense, I can accept that.

[Calrid]

@Flannel Jesus

@Calrid

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

Jesus you’re so inconsistent you can’t even keep straight what it is you did and didn’t say.

“The Bell’s-Aspect experiment shows that any deterministic local model will not explain quantum mechanics phenomena.”
You brought this up in the context of a discussion of Many Worlds and Determinism. I don’t know why you even brought it up if you didn’t think it refuted Many Worlds. Are you now saying that you were just making irrelevant posts? Those are the two options: you were making irrelevant posts or you were making incorrect posts. Which one is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were saying something actually relevant, but if after all this time you’re going to say that you were just saying nonsense, I can accept that.

Yeah the key there is to understand what I am saying. The experiment disputes many worlds only in the sense that you can’t experimentally verify local hidden natures of postulates. That was the point I was making, if you could say that all possible outcomes actually do happen and show them all happening then it would disprove the assertions made by the experiment, but it can’t so it doesn’t so its useless. In fact because of the spin relationship formed by entangled photons only a probability of an outcome is possible, this isn’t hard to understand it just requires basic maths.

“No local hidden variable theory can explain the Aspect experiments.”

Since MWI claims it can make a logical argument not an experimental one the point still stands. No local… Note the use of theory (in science this means empirically verified). I haven’t proved MWI is wrong, what I have done is much worse, I have proved it is not even wrong.

[Flannel_Jesus]

Oh boy, you’re still saying it disputes many worlds, and at the same time trying to say that you were never using it to argue against many worlds. Facepalm. You’re not an expert, you’re not even an amateur yet. You don’t know enough about the status quo to defend the status quo. You can’t even argue consistently. You don’t get it.

[Calrid]

@Flannel Jesus

Oh boy, you’re still saying it disputes many worlds, and at the same time trying to say that you were never using it to argue against many worlds. Facepalm. You’re not an expert, you’re not even an amateur yet. You don’t know enough about the status quo to defend the status quo. You can’t even argue consistently. You don’t get it.

Yes it disputes it, no it does not disprove it, that’s not what I said, the semantics are vital. It only says that MWI is not even wrong, for it to be wrong it would need to be tested.

Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment proves that there are no local hidden variables.
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment disproves Many Worlds.

I never said that.

Me or any scientist for that matter who claims he can prove something does not exist is shooting himself in the foot.

drchinese.com/David/Bell_The … y_Math.htm

Read this it requires a school education to understand it. It has been proven in experiment.

We’re done! We have proved the main component of Bell’s Theorem: that the predictions of any Hidden Variables theory (1/3 or greater) are incompatible with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics (1/4). Bell does not tell us whether it is Quantum Mechanics or Hidden Variables which is correct - in fact they could both be wrong. But they cannot both be right. That didn’t hurt, did it?

Perhaps if you had read this link you would not of claimed what I said as being proof of the lack of existence?

After Bell

So the last step is one you can see coming: perform an EXPERIMENT that tests the above; then see if the results are closer to QM’s prediction of .250 or to the Local Hidden Variables scenario (i.e. at least .333). They cannot both be right. If they are NOT in accordance with the .333 prediction, then our initial assumption above - that A, B and C exist simultaneously - must be WRONG. Please recall: a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove any theory, and this forms the basis of our conclusion.

The results: Experiments support the predictions of QM. The measured value for the matches at 120 degrees is very nearly .250 just as QM predicts. As a practical matter, the experiments are set up differently than described here; and a different version of Bell’s Inequality - called the CHSH Inequality - is what is actually analyzed. See these actual experiments, which seem to defy common sense! See also Aspect’s 1981 work (4), which is considered definitive. This result means that our seemingly reasonable assumption (that there are simultaneous Hidden Variables) that we started with in a. above is invalid. This is easily explained in QM because QM says that particle attributes only exist within the context of an actual measurement. Therefore, we must conclude that the moon is NOT there when we are not looking at it (so to speak). This is the end result of Bell’s Theorem.

Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein’s Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called “signal locality”), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell’s Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it.

Incidentally since that article was written almost all of the loopholes have been closed, but new ones keep popping up.

[Flannel_Jesus]

“The classic “Bell’s Theorem” of Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne tells us that we must give up at least one of: (1) objective reality (aka “hidden variables”); (2) locality; or (3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka “causality”). The orthodox Copenhagen version of physics gives up the first. The many-worlds theory of Everett and Wheeler gives up the second.”

arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234

Bell’s theorem does not disprove, dispute, undermine, or in any way challenge Many Worlds. Many Worlds works with Bell’s Theorem as much as anything else.

[Calrid]

@Flannel Jesus

“The classic “Bell’s Theorem” of Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne tells us that we must give up at least one of: (1) objective reality (aka “hidden variables”); (2) locality; or (3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka “causality”). The orthodox Copenhagen version of physics gives up the first. The many-worlds theory of Everett and Wheeler gives up the second.”

arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234

Bell’s theorem does not disprove, dispute, undermine, or in any way challenge Many Worlds. Many Worlds works with Bell’s Theorem as much as anything else.

It does though doesn’t it because it can’t be tested. Do you see Bell’s doesn’t just imply that local hidden variable theories and non local theories can’t both be true, it implies any testable local theory has yet to show that Bells theorem is wrong in any known experiment, hence it is not even wrong. What is right is simply as stated on that link:

No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

So MWI is not a local hidden variable theory or that statement is false, and I can tell you that it isn’t as far as we know.

So we can’t say no local hidden variable hypothesis exists, but we can say no theory does as yet.

[Flannel_Jesus]

I can see this is all way too above your head, you’re just going to read your own biases into whatever you see. I don’t really have much patience for that. You don’t know as much as you think you do about QM, some humility would do you good instead of the arrogance you’ve shown in this thread, proclaiming yourself the great defender of the status quo.

[Calrid]

@Flannel Jesus

I can see this is all way too above your head, you’re just going to read your own biases into whatever you see. I don’t really have much patience for that. You don’t know as much as you think you do about QM, some humility would do you good instead of the arrogance you’ve shown in this thread, proclaiming yourself the great defender of the status quo.

Yes you are too ignorant to understand that what you said I said is wrong.

I never said it disproved MWI, I never said anything like what you said. Eat humble pie dude.

So basically your supposition that I Claimed Bell proved MWI wrong is false. Philosophy papers are all very well but MWI remains untestable.

Yes there is a backwards in time loophole no it is not completely shut because people keep coming up with holographic universes and all sorts of weird shit.

[tab]

Then, in the early 1970s, a young French student named Alain Aspect came on the scene. He had just finished his mandatory military service as a teacher in Cameroon and was casting around for a PhD topic. Chancing upon Bell’s paper and the history of the debate between Bohr and Einstein, he was entranced. “It was the most exciting thing for an experimentalist to test who was right,” says Aspect, now at the Institute of Optics in Palaiseau, France.

So Aspect visited Bell to seek his blessing. Bell warned Aspect that many regarded investigating the roots of quantum reality as “crackpot physics”, and asked him whether he had a secure job. “I did. It was small, but it was permanent,” says Aspect. “They could not fire me.” That security allowed Aspect to embark on a seven-year search to find out who was right: Bohr or Einstein.

Aspect’s experiments broadly followed a pattern established in previous tests of Bell’s inequality. Atoms were first stimulated to emit pairs of photons that were correlated in their polarisation states. These polarisations were then measured at two separate detectors, which are by convention maintained by two characters called Alice and Bob (see diagram).

That depended on measuring large numbers of photon pairs to get statistically significant results. By the time Aspect, together with his students Philippe Grangier and Jean Dalibard, was ready to perform his definitive tests, advances in laser technology were making that an easier task. “By 1980, I had by far the best source of entangled photons in the world,” says Aspect. Whereas it had previously taken hours or even days to get the number of photons required, he could now get them in just 1 minute.

It was still painstaking work. But by 1982 the researchers had the most convincing retort yet in the quantum reality debate. There was no doubting the results. Bohr was right; Bell’s inequality was violated (Physical Review Letters, vol 49, p 91). The world is just as weird as quantum theory says it is. “It was thrilling,” says Aspect.
Niggling doubts

End of story? Not a bit of it. Experiments are rarely entirely conclusive, and- influenced no doubt by Einstein’s reputation- niggling doubts remained that perhaps nature had fooled the experimenters into thinking quantum theory was the true answer. Even if the measured correlations exceeded Bell’s maximum, there were enough loopholes in the experiments to leave wiggle room for something other than quantum mechanics to be the cause.

“The question of whether nature is local, realistic or quantum-mechanical is so deep and so important that we should try to do these experiments as cleanly and as loophole-free as possible,” says Johannes Kofler, a theorist with the Vienna team. “It’s really all about ruling out conspiracy theories of nature against us.”

Aspect’s experiments had already done sterling work in trying to close one loophole that Bell had identified - the locality loophole. Unless the detectors used by Alice and Bob are far enough apart to prevent communication between them at light speed or below, some influence might propagate through a hidden layer of reality, telling Alice’s detector the outcome of Bob’s measurement before she performs her own, say, and maybe even fiddling with her detector’s settings to change the outcome. “If you allow such a communication, it would be easy to violate Bell’s inequality in local realism,” says Kofler.

The highly efficient source of entangled photons and superior optics used by Aspect had enabled his team to separate Alice and Bob by about 6 metres. That gave them just enough time to change the settings of the detectors after the photons had left the source, hopefully stymieing any attempt of a hidden communication channel to ambush the experiment (Physical Review Letters, vol 49, p 1804).

That was cunning, but not quite cunning enough. The team had only nanoseconds to change the detectors’ settings, which was not enough time to change them randomly. Instead, they had to use a predictable, periodic pattern. If some hidden channel did exist, then over time the detectors used by Alice and Bob might figure out each other’s settings and again trip up the experiment.

To nip that sort of thing in the bud, in 1998 Gregor Weihs, Anton Zeilinger and their colleagues strung Alice and Bob 400 metres apart over their university campus in Innsbruck, Austria, using optical fibres to connect the detectors to a photon source placed between the two. That gave them about 1.3 microseconds’ grace after the photons were fired to switch the detector settings randomly. To close the locality loophole even tighter, atomic clocks ensured that Alice and Bob’s measurements were made within 5 nanoseconds of each other - quick enough to prevent a hidden message being transferred. The test showed clear violations of Bell’s inequality (Physical Review Letters, vol 81, p 5039). Quantum mechanics reigned supreme…

… Collapse of reality

Even as the main loopholes in tests of quantum mechanics are closed (see main story), others open up. Take the “collapse locality” loophole, the brainchild of Adrian Kent at the University of Cambridge.

According to many interpretations of quantum theory, a pair of entangled photons exists in a superposition of quantum states until the point of measurement, at which point it collapses into a specific state. The experiments performed so far have assumed this collapse to be instantaneous. But it isn’t. In interpretations that require events to be registered by human consciousness for states to collapse, it takes as much as 0.1 seconds.

That means one quantum state could potentially signal its collapse to another remote location before the second state’s collapse could be registered. To close this loophole, real humans would have to record the events and be spaced more than 0.1 light-seconds apart- about 30,000 kilometres (Physical Review A, vol 72, p 012107).

“It seems far-fetched,” says Nobel laureate Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “But on the other hand if you had told me back in 1985 that by 2010 people were going to be doing this kind of experiment over 100 kilometres, I’d have said you must be joking.”

[/tab]

newscientist.com/article/mg2 … tml?page=2

[James_S_Saint]

@Calrid

“No local hidden variable theory can explain the Aspect experiments.”

I am not familiar with Bell’s Aspect experiment, but that statement has about zero chance of being true.

@Calrid

Since MWI claims it can make a logical argument not an experimental one the point still stands. No local… Note the use of theory (in science this means empirically verified). I haven’t proved MWI is wrong, what I have done is much worse, I have proved it is not even wrong.

So do you consider the Multi-world theory to be part of the “Quantum Revolution”?
If so, I can disprove that one for you… assuming that you stop getting all pissy and calm down.

[Calrid]

@James S Saint

@Calrid

“No local hidden variable theory can explain the Aspect experiments.”

I am not familiar with Bell’s Aspect experiment, but that statement has about zero chance of being true.

@Calrid

Since MWI claims it can make a logical argument not an experimental one the point still stands. No local… Note the use of theory (in science this means empirically verified). I haven’t proved MWI is wrong, what I have done is much worse, I have proved it is not even wrong.

So do you consider the Multi-world theory to be part of the “Quantum Revolution”?
If so, I can disprove that one for you… assuming that you stop getting all pissy and calm down.

No dude, but at least you asked a question that was relevant to what I said thank you.

I’m not pissy this is a call out thread. You have to smack talk.

I can swear and rant more if you like just to make that point, and by all means prove that MWI is part of the quantum revolution without claiming I have no chance of understanding why. Hell I agree it certainly is, but that does not answer why it is all mixed up.

I am not familiar with Bell’s Aspect experiment, but that statement has about zero chance of being true.

And now we are talking read the link you should understand it because it is very basic spin maths involving only cosine stuff. If you disagree then by all mean wax on.

We both know about spins, they are not classical, the 1/2 spin does not mean a rotation about 180 or 360 degrees is the same any more than boson is rotated precisely about axes we know because of the complex angle in maths. With that in mind you should instinctively know why the Aspect experiment precludes local hidden variables. And I will no patronise you by assuming you don’t.

[James_S_Saint]

By merely your description, I can tell that any profitable discussion concerning spin would require that you (and I) actually understand with serious confidence, exactly how a particle is formed. I know that you don’t, but I know (or “claim” from your perspective) that I do, but I would have to prove that construction to you before we even bothered with any spin issues.

On the other hand, the MW issue can be resolved through more direct logic. So now that you say that you consider the MWT to be a part of that “quantum revolution”, let’s go into that one, k?

What I need from you is an exact statement representing that theory. It must be worded very carefully to ensure that it says exactly what YOU think that theory really proclaims. So your up…

[Calrid]

@James S Saint

By merely your description, I can tell that any profitable discussion concerning spin would require that you (and I) actually understand with serious confidence, exactly how a particle is formed. I know that you don’t, but I know (or “claim” from your perspective) that I do, but I would have to prove that construction to you before we even bothered with any spin issues.

On the other hand, the MW issue can be resolved through more direct logic. So now that you say that you consider the MWT to be a part of that “quantum revolution”, let’s go into that one, k?

What I need from you is an exact statement representing that theory. It must be worded very carefully to ensure that it says exactly what YOU think that theory really proclaims. So your up…

And then you go into patronising mode. You don’t understand how a particle is what it is, if you did by now you would have explained it without the need to demean my intellect.

If you don’t need spin issues then fucking show my why!

Gah this smack talk is not really worth it because you don’t answer any questions you just claim I cannot possibly understand your ideas. Well if that’s true then probably no one can, and where the hell is that going to get you? Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

I know full well you have claimed you can write a program that basically explains the whole of physics, what I don’t know is why you think all this is going to be proven? If you could do that then you know full well the Nobel prize for being a smart ass would be yours. And genuinely if it is congratulations but until it is why should I care?

[James_S_Saint]

@Calrid

@James S Saint

On the other hand, the MW issue can be resolved through more direct logic. So now that you say that you consider the MWT to be a part of that “quantum revolution”, let’s go into that one, k?

What I need from you is an exact statement representing that theory. It must be worded very carefully to ensure that it says exactly what YOU think that theory really proclaims. So your up…

And then you go into patronising mode. You don’t understand how a particle is what it is, if you did by now you would have explained it without the need to demean my intellect.

If you don’t need spin issues then fucking show my why!

Gah this smack talk is not really worth it because you don’t answer any questions you just claim I cannot possibly understand your ideas. Well if that’s true then probably no one can, and where the hell is that going to get you? Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

I made a direct path for you to defend MWT or me to disprove it.
How about you, once again, stop the pathetic presumptuous whining and just answer the challenge that you asked for in the first place.

[Calrid]

@James S Saint

@Calrid

@James S Saint

On the other hand, the MW issue can be resolved through more direct logic. So now that you say that you consider the MWT to be a part of that “quantum revolution”, let’s go into that one, k?

What I need from you is an exact statement representing that theory. It must be worded very carefully to ensure that it says exactly what YOU think that theory really proclaims. So your up…

And then you go into patronising mode. You don’t understand how a particle is what it is, if you did by now you would have explained it without the need to demean my intellect.

If you don’t need spin issues then fucking show my why!

Gah this smack talk is not really worth it because you don’t answer any questions you just claim I cannot possibly understand your ideas. Well if that’s true then probably no one can, and where the hell is that going to get you? Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

I made a direct path for you to defend MWT or me to disprove it.
How about you, once again, stop the pathetic presumptuous whining and just answer the challenge that you asked for in the first place.

Why would I defend MWI? I made a direct path for you to claim that QM is all wrong. Why don’t you do that?

My challenge is still open, every contention you’ve had so far is focusing on what we don’t know, this is easy to do. What is harder is to focus on what we do know and then prove it is wrong. You wont do it either because you can’t or because you wont. Either way you are full of it.

I refer you to other threads where I said diddums you are so misunderstood and everyone is trying to keep you down. Who the fuck cares.

Look I don’t doubt you are right I only doubt that you are not even wrong. Let’s take this to the next level, what have you got, explain it to me. Or Really don’t give a damn what you think?

[James_S_Saint]

@Calrid

Why would I defend MWI? I made a direct path for you to claim that QM is all wrong. Why don’t you do that?

My challenge is still open, every contention you’ve had so far is focusing on what we don’t know, this is easy to do. What is harder is to focus on what we do know and then prove it is wrong. You wont do it either because you can’t or because you wont. Either way you are full of it.

So you don’t even know the theories that you propose that other people go disprove for you?
Aren’t you getting a bit ridiculous?

[Calrid]

@James S Saint

@Calrid

Why would I defend MWI? I made a direct path for you to claim that QM is all wrong. Why don’t you do that?

My challenge is still open, every contention you’ve had so far is focusing on what we don’t know, this is easy to do. What is harder is to focus on what we do know and then prove it is wrong. You wont do it either because you can’t or because you wont. Either way you are full of it.

So you don’t even know the theories that you propose that other people go disprove for you?
Aren’t you getting a bit ridiculous?

Are you on drugs?

What the hell would be the point in proving something that is untestable is wrong in science? Sincerely you are not on the same planet as science.

My argument is not about MWI, flannel Jesus said it was. My argument is where is QM wrong. Either show it or don’t.