Eise

And, oh, by the way, I am still waiting for an example:

So what is the difference between the entanglement experiment and the Alice and Bob scenario? What? SR is the theory of how observers in different inertial frames of reference see physical events. It is the theory about how events are seen across different reference frames. How often must I repeat this? No order of events is 'changed'. Observers in different inertial frames of reference just see them in different timely order, when events are space-like separated. So this is blatantly false: Again: the essential improvement of Aspect's experiment was that the measurements were space-like separated. And when the measurements are, then there will be inertial frames in which the timely order of the measurements is in one direction, and others where it is in the other direction. And that is exactly what I am saying. However, you use the inertial frame of reference of the experiment as a preferred frame of reference. Which is prohibited by SR, exactly as you say.

So your answer on my question of giving an example of a signal that does not imply transfer of energy is "No, I do not have such an example". Try again. And do not forget: no begging the question. Another example as entanglement. Sigh. I nowhere said that results are changed because of 'outside observations' (I assume you mean 'observations by observers that move relative to the experiment'. Why are you so vague again and again?). I am saying, trying other words, there is no universally agreed timely order of the space-like separated measurements. The inertial frame of the experiment has no 'special authority': that would mean it would be a preferred inertial frame of reference, which is against SR. So different observers do not agree upon which measurement was first, and therefore about the direction of a signal.

The measurements do not have to be 'at the same femto second' in the rest frame of the experiment. To be space-like separated is enough. As in Aspect's 'real world' experiment. Really? A real signal, i.e. transferring information (and therefore at least a minimum amount of energy)? Or will you beg the question, and will give entanglement as example? So, please, give an example of such a signal, but not concerning entanglement. Simultaneous according which observer? Simultaneity is not even agreed upon by different observers for time-like separated events. Only the timely order is.

No, I noticed earlier, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe bangstrom has some problems understanding texts, maybe he doesn't know SR, etc... But I already called him a troll much earlier: Page 14 .

It is obvious what I mean: again you are obfuscating the discussion. Of course I mean it in the context of SR: all inertial reference frames are equally valid; none is privileged, not even the inertial frame where entanglement source and measuring devices are at rest. So if we have two events, e.g. two measurements, that are space-like separated, there is no fixed timely order. You are moving the goal posts. Yes, it is easy, just setup the experiment so that the measurements are time-like separated. But that was not what we are talking about. You are evading the point we are making. As you know, we say there is no message. And one of the ways of seeing that is that when the two measurements are space-like separated, the timely order is different for different observers. Signals have a direction. But a signal going into one direction for one observer, but in another direction for another observer makes no sense physically.

Which is not relevant at all for the point we are making with our references to SR. You could just as well have said "the earth is a sphere": it is true, but not relevant when discussing space-like separated measurements. Again: the improvement of Aspect's experiments compared to Clauser's, was that the measurements were space-like separated, i.e. even a light signal would not be fast enough to 'tell' the other measurement what it should be. Yes, you did: Here you take the inertial frame of the entanglement source and the measurement devices as a preferred frame. There is no change in order of events. With space-like separated events there is no objective order of events. For one observer measurement 1 might be first, for another measurement 2. Nothing changes. It is only a change of perspective. It's OK, I didn't criticise your anthropomorphic expression. I even went with it, and I do it here again: no, there is no way that on basis of a measurement one can know if the other was already measured or not. If you think you can, then show us how. But with space-like separated events, mind you, in the SR meaning of the word, not with 'space distance'. I nowhere said such a thing. If you think I did, cite the relevant text passage.

So that means your argument is not relevant. That particles at different locations have a space distance is a tautology. That two measurements are space-like separated in a space-time diagram is not. This is just one example of you confusing, or better, obfuscating, the discussion again and again. (Calling' non-locality' 'not realist' is another one.) As repeatedly said, the inertial frame of the entanglement source and the measurement devices is not a privileged frame. There is no 'objective now', and no absolute timely order for space-like separated events, so no objective first. There is no way, even for the measurements themselves, to 'know' if its entangled partner has been measured. There is no flipping of the wave function before it is measured: there are only measurements. It takes so long because you do not see the relevance of it. You only show again and again that you do not understand SR, and therefore you do not understand the relevance.

Here you show where you do not understand space-time diagrams. If you would draw a simple space diagram, yes, then there is a space distance between particles at different locations. But that is not the same as a space-like separation between 2 events in a space-time diagram! One could call a space-time diagram also a causality diagram. Events that are space-like separated cannot have a causal connection. Events that are time-like separated can have causal relationships. And because of the 'law of conservation of causality', i.e. every observer agrees what event was the cause, and what event is the effect, every observer agrees about the timely order of events. And as there is no possible causal connection between space-like separated events, there is no problem that different observers see them in a different timely order. And this is the crux of Aspect's experiment, where it improved on Clauser's: Aspect set up the experiment in such a way that the measurements could not even influence each other with the speed of light. In other words, they were space-like separated, i.e. outside each other's light cones. This (italics) is definitely false: Nobody here defended that there are observers that see time-like separated events in a different timely order. Your first sentence is correct, except that it is not relevant precisely because the essential improvement of Aspect was that the measurements were space-like separated. Recall, the measurements, i.e. events, were space-like separated. Not with Clauser's experiment. There of course there was a spatial distance between the measurement devices, but the measurements were not space-like separated, in the sense of SR. All this confusion arises because you are so sloppy with what a space-time diagram depicts, namely events, not physical objects. A physical object A in a space-time diagram is a chain of events, A being at x1 at t1, at x2 at t2, etc. Drawn all infinitesimal positions and times, the physical object A will show as a world-line, never as an individual point. Again, your use of the concepts in your arguments are so vague, that they are, well, not even wrong. They miss the matter under discussion completely.

This shows you do not even understand what SR is about. The 'objects' in a space-time diagram are events, not physical objects of any kind, so not particles either. Important to note is that the measurements (that are events) both lie in (e.g. when using electrons) or on (when using photons) the future light cone of the event in which the entangled particles were created. Of course observers have no effect on the timing. But when the measurements (events!) are space-like separated, there will be observers who see Alice's measurement first, and others that see Bob's measurement first. So that would mean that the first observer must, according to you, send a FTL signal to Bob, but for another observer Bob must send a signal to Alice. But under relativity, all observers agree on what physically is happening. A signal going into one direction for one observer, and into the other direction for another observer, cannot be a physical signal. A none-physical signal is no signal at all. And this has nothing to do with: Observers can perfectly calculate the delay due to their distance of the measurements. And they still will observe that they see the measurements in a different timely order. Space-like separated events do not have a defined timely order, it depends on the observer. And don't forget: the inertial frame in which the entanglement source, and the measurement devices of Alice and Bob are standing still, is not a privileged frame. You really do not understand SR, and the relevance of it for understanding what the true impact of entanglement is.

I find it a terrible error that we have invested, and are still investing, so much money in nuclear technology, just to keep up the energy that our society is wasting everywhere. If we had used all that money in technologies that save energy on one side, and develop durable energy sources, we would have no problems now. We are stuck with a technology that works, but I still don't know of any country that has a definite solution for nuclear waste of nuclear fission plants, and how to go on when we are running out of U-235; and a technology that will be successful 50 years in the future, and will always be that way.Yes, I am very pessimistic that we will ever have useful nuclear fusion power plants.

Seems just an old fashioned neon bulb. If you want to be careful, and have some nice power supplies, I would slowly turn up the AC or DC to 220 Volt. Otherwise turn it into the correct E27 fitting, and connect it to the power grid. Best with a switch of course, and safety glasses on. Here an example, DC one direction, DC other direction, and AC:

Oh, I nearly always see steel constructions in thunder clouds ... OK, without joking, there is a nice subtle difference in Kevin's thunderstorm, and real-life thunderstorms. With Kevin, all the droplets fall downwards. So my guess is that this construction is needed, because otherwise the influence can not be self-amplifying. In real thunderclouds of course we have up- and down-streams, making steel constructions unnecessary.

Kevin's Thunderstorm? See here, from Veritasium. Are clouds with upgoing and downfalling drops and ice crystals not gigantic influence machines, so to speak wet versions of the Wimshurst machine? Which, of course as nothing more than you suggest...

No, no, definitely not. He tends to give up on realism. Yep. I think on one side he is teasing out the maximum of his experimental capabilities, at the other side I think he is trying to convince people that the free-choice loophole is not very feasible anymore. The orientation of the polarizers should have been determined already about 8 billion LY ago! And that without any meaningful hypothesis how nature does that. PS But Sabine Hossenfelder is in favour of superdeterminism. I will read her podcast again, see how she argues. (And if she uses the same definition as Zeilinger does...)

Also +1. And then I wanted to know from where you got that, and found one, that I am afraid, is even more realistic:

Sigh... Again you are interpreting Zeilinger wrong. And, framed by your interpretation, even @joigus gets it wrong here: No, you are reading it 'backwards'. Read precisely what Zeilinger is saying: Superdeterminism would be (reshuffling above sentence): That would mean that reality (even in the far past) has a very essential influence on our deciding which measurement to perform. Read closely, so that you see the difference. If necessary, repeat in your own words, so that we can check that you really understand that you read the original sentence backwards. In Zeilinger's own words, in its own paragraph about superdeterminism (calling it 'total determinism'): Bold by me. I mentioned that already here: And this is what the 'quasar-driven' experiment is about. Not about the choice of locality on one side, and realism on the other. Again, bangstrom, in their technical meanings as used in CHSH, not in what you would like to see as realism (non-locality implies non-realism). Zeilinger and co are very clear in their article: it is about closing the free-choice loophole, not about locality or realism. Just in case you do not notice: I boldface words in my own texts, that use these words as they are meant in their precise meanings as used by all QM authors, especially CHSH. Nope. Correlation (consistently, not accidentally) means that the events share a common history. And that is the moment that the entangled particle were produced.

Yep. Read, and understand the paragraph after the one where your citation comes from. Your claim is false. And as @Ghideon clearly has shown to you, in none of the explanations the motivation 'non-locality' is mentioned. 'Local realism', yes, but in its technical meaning: locality and realism, as two distinct assumptions on which CHSH is based. You are subsuming 'locality' under 'realism', which is simply not the way these are used for CHSH. And still you have not been able to cite even one recent text, where a QM specialist argues that we must give up on locality. Yes, you'll find popular science books in which such is stated, and, even worse, standard QM text books that say such things (read the Coleman article again, and try to understand it!). If you need that simplification, then I am glad for you. Close reading of Zeilinger's book, would have solved this from the beginning. And what do you mean with 'realism' this time? And what concept of realism your are meaning here? It cannot be the one of CHSH. Aha, so not what is the basis of CHSH. I would say "Shut up and calculate". Read Susskind's book, and it is all explained in mathematical detail. There is a better word: correlation! OMG! Two cars colliding is a single event. Two measurements are two events. Two measurements that are space-like separated do not have the same timely order in all inertial frames. This comparison is BS. OK, by me. Psssst.... @joigus uses 'realism' in the same meaning as CHSH does. Not your obfuscating meaning.

Nope. You cannot read. Or intentionally interpret it wrong. He is very clear about it, that his stance is another one than 'most physicists' (in 2010), again the same citation: In clear text for you: it is not possible to speak about all properties of a particle, or a pair of entangled particles, before they are measured. That is what is meant by realism. And if we give up on realism, we do not have to give up on locality. And QM does not need none-localism. This has nothing to do with locality and/or realism. This is to make the freedom-of-choice loophole (AKA superdetermism) less probable. By using quasars 7.8 Billion lightyears from here, and in opposite direction, it would mean that already 7.8 billion years ago it was determined in which direction the polarizers would be set. From here: Why going on a side track? We are not discussing superdeterminism here.

I once saw a fireball (big meteor), and I was sure I could hear it at the same time. A friend of mine noticed that this would be impossible: fireballs are still somewhere 50-100 km high in the atmosphere, so the sound would take much longer to reach my ears. Many years later, I read about a possible explanation: it seems that microwaves are capable to move dry hair slightly, and it is the 'fizzling' of the hair you can hear. As I had quite long hair in those days, this might be an explanation. But to be honest, I also am open to the suggestion that it was just an illusion.

Because, obviously, most specialists on fundamentals of QM today say that of the two different assumptions behind Bell like inequalities, locality and realism, the most tend to give up on realism. I am not interested in QM of 50 years ago. Because @joigus, and @MigL quite convincingly explain why. Because of the no-communication theorem. Because Bell's theorem only says it is impossible to simulate entanglement with classically devices. With classically working devices, but only then, you would need FTL communication. Using QM, you do not need FTL signals to explain entanglement. A blatant lie. Your out of context citation of Zeilinger: And the next paragraph in Zeilinger's book: Italics by me. We are full circle. Groundhog Day: you are caught in a loop, bangstrom.

Yes. You bend their words, I read what they really are saying. I read the text as a whole, and do not pick out citations that fit me best. Only after you redefined realism to contain locality. Zeilinger and your IBM lady are very clear: 2 distinct assumptions flow into the CHSH inequality: realism and locality. In this whole thread you were defending that we should give up on locality. And now you are saying that instead we should give up on realism??

Addition: Your IBM video: 2022 Nope. They showed that at least one of both, locality or realism is not valid. All my bulleted authors above say, or tend to, give up on realism, especially Zeilinger himself. Exactly. Especially, they say nothing about a signal. You are arguing in ill faith. Where CHSC clearly distinguish between the two assumptions, locality and realism, you are suddenly talking about 'locality' and 'local realism'. It was already explained to you ad nauseam that in CHSC 'local realism' means 'locality' and 'realism'.

Right. The only thing @bangstrom does is repeating points that he made already; evading questions; redefining words; suggesting his knowledge of QM is uptodate, where yours and Swansont's is not (on the brink of being insulting); cite text passages out of context or not relevant; and obfuscating with new formulations that have simply no content ('effect of correlation'). He is not seriously interested to learn something. He cannot confess he is wrong, either because he doesn't want to lose his face, or because he is ideologically attached to the idea of non-locality. He is just trolling around.

WHAT? Swansont showed it: Joigus mentioned it several times. And in Susskind's Quantum Mechanics; the theoretical minimum you find it on page 166. And here you find it on Wikipedia. So refresh your memory: Or show where the formula indicates a signal between the particles. It is called the singlet state, and QM shows it can be created. In that you shifted the meaning away from how it is used in the CHSH inequality. For you, realism includes locality. For CHSH it doesn't. Here you are redefining it: That simply is not what CHSH is about. It clearly distinguishes the two assumptions on which it is based: locality on one side, realism on the other side.