Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum Entanglement = Attraction?

Wayne,

If I am not mistaken, you are not Physicist.
To be able to unerstand and appreciate the actual arguments, one must be at least a very good Physicist.
The problem with QM is that crooks and fools are parasiting on its overwhelming success.
And the back door is "projection postulate" nonsense.

eS

Extrasense,

If I am not mistaken, you are not answering the Question.
To be able to not look like a total idiot, one must be at least able to answer a very simple question.
The problem with your arguments is that they are unfounded and unsupported, and you yourself can't even explain them.
And your attempt to dodge the question by insulting my intelligence is "extrasense" nonsense.

wZ

wayne,
while you are clearly unable to ask a question that makes sense, I attribute it to your ignorance and not to your lack of intelligence.

e:S

Extrasense,

All I'm asking for is a description of an experiment that would prove the existence or non-existence of entanglement. Your expectation of such an experiment would be that it disproves the existence entanglement, my expectation would be that it proves the existence of entanglement.

Creating and describing such experiments is the foundation of theoretical physics. You claim to be not just a "Very Good Physicist", but one of the most brilliant physicists who has ever lived, capable of recalculating from scratch all the formulas used by physicists today to the degree of knowing what an elephant would experience while crossing a black hole event horizon. (Not just summarizing, but - by your own explanation of your actions - actually recalculating all the formulas from scratch just in case all the physicists before you were wrong.) A person who can do that can most certainly describe his position on something that they are so certain of as to accuse the scientific community of fraud.

Following the thought-patterns of idiots, it is clear that your next step is to avoid the question again by challenging me to design such an experiment if I think it's so easy. But there's a difference: The experiments have already been done. All I'd have to do is point you in any of the several directions you've already been pointed. But you refute the validity of all those experiments - not because they are unsound and not because they are error prone, but because they disagree with what you expected.

Tell us, in whatever terms you deems necessary, and whatever level of complexity, what is wrong with those experiments and how you would fix them so that they would prove your point.

Appealing to my ignorance only exposes your own.

w

Wayne ... ES's argument is that he knows something you don't know and that you, me, Dr. R, and others are incapable of even reading his reason much less understanding it.

If it were not so superficial and transparent it would be sad. Richard Feynman could explain his thoughts to the lay public. Stephen Hawking can explain his thoughts to the lay public. But apparently ES, being so much more brilliant than either Dr. Feynman or Dr. Hawking, is incapable of doing so. I guess ES feels cheated that the frauds won't give him the Nobel Prize he so obviously deserves.

Sarcasm aside ... you have thoroughly exposed ES for what he is: A troll. And his condescending and arrogant response should convince you that he has nothing to contribute on the topic.

Well done ES. I was optimistic that you might actually try to respond to an honest question with an honest answer. I was wrong.

It's sad. I was honestly hoping that he'd actually have something interesting to contribute to a meaningful debate. At this point, unless he suddenly produces a coherent reasoning for his position, there can be no other conclusion than that he is intentionally trolling. How pathetic.

Well, let us see if you can understand Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen:
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v47/i10/p777_1

I will point to you, that they have fully proven what they have set out to prove: that "Quantumn Mechanical Description" that includes projection postulate, is "incomplete". It is no good, in other words.

Now use your brains. I suggest and claim, that without projection postulate their proof would not be possible. In fact, without projection postulate included in QM, the "Quantumn Mechanical Description" is complete and good!

Well, I do not expect you to get this anyway

es

You're pointing to an article from 1935 as your proof?

There have been one or two advancements since then. You may have read about some of them somewhere. (Or not.)

Your suggestion that "incomplete" is equivalent to "no good" is ludicrous. Incomplete is incomplete. No good is no good. They are not the same.

Would you say that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is no good? It's incomplete, you know. General Relativity is also incomplete. Obviously, they're both garbage and should be thrown out.

Our understanding of gravity is incomplete too. Obviously, Isaac Newton was a fraud. So there's really no gravity. Good thing, too: It's going save me a fortune on airline tickets once I figure out how to make the earth stop sucking.

w

A. Einstein is no good?

Ignorance has no limits, apparently

es

I had a low opinion of you before ES but this really puts the frosting on the cake.

Albert Einstein disavowed this paper and acknowledge he was incorrect.

What you have written marks you as a crackpot. My cat knows relativity is incomplete. My cat knows QM is incomplete. It doesn't matter. It is an irrelevancy. Entanglement has been proven in the lab and you have again, and rather poorly I might add, attempted dodged answering the question Wayne asked you.

If you can't be bothered to post something with substance expect to be treated accordingly.

ES wrote:
"Ignorance has no limits, apparently"

In your case it would seem to be the case. You were asked a simple question and you have not answered it.

You have pointed, instead, to a paper disavowed by its own author as being incorrect. A fact that is probably written into every book on QM published in the last 30 years.

For anyone wondering why Wayne and I are reacting to ES in this manner I recommend the following link:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Which proves once again that one should not throw pearls in front of pigs.

e s

ES: I never said Einstein is no good. You're the one who says that incomplete theories are no good. I simply pointed out that Einstein's theories are incomplete. By your own definition then, they are no good. Yet you point to one of his papers as proof. But it just happens that this particular paper really IS no good, as Einstein himself pointed out.

So, answer the question: What impossible thing would you need to witness to change your mind about entanglement?

(And the quotation is, "do not throw pearls before swine" - which just goes to show that your knowledge of literature is as poor as your knowledge of physics. Are there any subjects at all that you know anything about?)

w

The conversation with ES is essentially over. He has had multiple opportunities to respond to the reasonable question you asked and has clearly demonstrated he either does not wish to or can't: I suspect the later as he has stated here in the past his minimal knowledge of basic math.

I plan to no longer respond, in this thread, to anything he posts. I think it the only reasonable response to someone refusing an invitation to reason.

Hi: Somewhere in this thread, my name arose. So I am inspired to make precise what I have to say:

Re: "entanglement": contrary to popular opinion, it is NO different from ordinary statistical correlation. The argument for a difference was launched by John Bell. But, he made a mistake first noticed by Edwin Janyes, namely, he misapplied Bayes' formuala for correlated events. This invalidates his famous "inequalitites" and therefore all evidence for 'nonlcality,' 'wave collapse,' etc. Further, as I have shown (and published) all EPR/GHZ the experiments can be understood in terms of Malus' Law, i.e., classically, locally and realistically.

All of my story has been published, against great resistence, in professionally respectable journals; preprints etc. can be downloaded at: www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com

The big 'poobahs' in the trade talk behind my back but have not found the wherewithall to criticize my work under their name where I can respond. It is a scandal that a "scientific" enterprise prefers a mystical interpretation of QM, which could well have something to do with the fact that historically fundamental science actually was an enterprise to substantiate creationism. Irony! No?

A. F. Kracklauer,

Just want to check, but is this your list of papers?
http://www.citebase.org/search?submit=1&author=Kracklauer%2C+A.+F.&maxrows=25

Thanks,
Durante.

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
""entanglement": contrary to popular opinion, it is NO different from ordinary statistical correlation."

Assuming the correlation is 100% vs. 0%?

If I measure the polarization of a local photon and 100% of the time the remote photon's polarization is predictable I will grant that this is a statistical correlation. But in what way is it not entanglement?

I haven't gotten to the library yet to read your papers but on its face your argument seems wanting.

The link you cite was generated by a crawler. The link to my own page is in my original message. Everything any critic needs to rebut my story can be found there.

Regards, AFK

In responce to DA Morgan:

Correlation goes from +1 to -1, depending on the setup (definitions used). Malus' Law covers the whole range, always. Best ref.: W. Feller, `Theory & application of stats' (best recolletion).

Entanglement is supposed to differ from ordinary statistical correlation in the regions where Bell inequalities are violated, i.e., where the CHSH limit (2) is exceeded, etc. In this region, it is said, the (quantum) correlation is "stronger than classical." However, as Bell made an incorrect assumption in deriving his inequalitites, it turns out they are violated by any setup obeying Malus' (nonquantum) Law. This explains the many classical counterexamples to be found in the literature, e.g., Barut in Found. of Phys. circa 1994. [In my papers one can find that this is not the only error in "Bell mysticism," there are at least 3 others.]

No need to go to any library, all I ever wrote on physics is available for download at: www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com

I grant, it's an amazing story. At conferences on Found. of Physics & Q. Optics I have been promissed (threatened?) by now about 70 renowned "experts," that as soon as they found time, they were going to write a devastating critique. After 15 years, none have found time! Is that credible? On the other hand, about 30-40% of all experimentalists in the field openly agree; that's how my papers managed to get published.

BTW, all I claim for myself is, that I worked out details of an argument that Edwin Jaynes was unable to finish because of his untimely death. I rediscovered the key point, after which Jaynes' work was brought to my attention. I came on most of this trying to debunk "teleportation," which it does in spades!

Regards, AFK

Hi AFK,

Your papers look interesting, but i haven't had a chance to read them yet. I did notice something about them that might help the controversy surrounding your research..

You say that your work has been met with great resistance, but most (not all) of your publications have not been peer-reviewed i.e. pre-print and conference proceedings. The community would take your work more seriously if you submitted your research to JHEP, Phys.Lett, Phys.Rev, Nature or Science for peer-review, for example. I know that scientists pay little attention to unpublished pre-prints.

Thanks.