Dalo

From Whitaker's book:

"Bohr himself died in 1962. Since then the practically monolithic subservience 
to his views on quantum interpretation has fragmented somewhat. The leading 
spirit in the process of re-evaluation has been a physicist from Ireland, John Bell, 
who was stimulated both by the views of Einstein, and by Bohm's work  
mentioned already. His work is discussed with that of Bohm in Chapter 7. 
Many other physicists have joined in the discussion of these ideas, analysing 
the ingenious difficulties for the Copenhagen interpretation thought up by 
Einstein, Schrodinger, Bell and others, and putting forward interpretations of 
their own. A few of these ideas are discussed in Chapter 8. Some of these writers 
have been very critical of Bohr. Murray Gell-Mann [5], himself a winner of the 
Nobel Prize for Physics, for example, has accused Bohr of 'brain-washing' the 
physics community into thinking the problems were solved. " p.10

If it is so easy to deny me any expertise in the matter, why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves?

How is it scientific to concentrate on who is saying what instead of what he is saying?

I consider your attitude as unscientific as you consider mine to be. I am not convinced of your wisdom, and any knowledge without wisdom is foolishness.

Just now, swansont said:

Which is shown to be wrong with the Bell test experiments. It's one thing to object. It's quite another to back it up (or not) with experimental evidence.

I find it quite surprising that you still cling to this interpretation. It has never been proven wrong. The debate is still ongoing.

3 minutes ago, uncool said:

It is not that you must agree with the premises. It is that you must understand them in the first place. It is that if you wish to reject what experts are saying, you need to know what they are saying in the first place.

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view

Attacking a view under the pretense that your opponent is not qualified is the weakest argument you can think of. What is demanded are arguments, not a judgment on your opponent's abilities. Only people unsure of their own arguments would  stoop so low.

4 minutes ago, uncool said:

Here's the thing: your rejection of those assumptions is precisely where a mathematical understanding of the physics comes in. Understanding the difference between those two integrals is precisely where you must learn the mathematics behind both classical and quantum mechanics.

I do not agree. This is a "technicist" or "scientist" (from scientism)  view that is a very subtle way of denying opponents any legitimacy unless they agree with the mathematical or interpretational premises. It is a circular argument with absolutely no value at all.

Keep your convictions of superiority if you will, I refuse to acknowledge it. And this refusal is not a rejection of science but of a certain toxic and elitist view of science.

Just now, uncool said:

No, you hadn't, because there is a difference between rejecting the theorem and rejecting the application of its assumptions. I do not mean it as a critique. I mean it as an attempt to make your position clearer. Now that it is clear you reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem - namely, the integrals - your position is far clearer.

All I understood is "your position is far clearer".

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Uncool is not second guessing yours; rather trying to get you to clarify your position. But, as always, you refuse to do this because ... well, because of course you do.

Then you are both putting the cart before the horse. In the thread Why I am a determinist, I briefly engaged these issues.

In this thread I  want to build a case for them. It is evident that I am no fan of Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics. But a philosophical opinion as this is nothing new. The EPR paper heralded it, and there are hundreds of publications that defend it. What could my own reiteration mean in such a context?

I think that my contribution would be much more meaningful if I proved such a thing as the claim I have presented here. That is why I refuse to be sidetracked towards a general abstract discussion.

17 minutes ago, uncool said:

It seems to me that you have not because you have not followed your own argument to its natural conclusion. Your argument seems to be entirely related to rejecting the conclusion of Bell's theorem to your experiment; if you accept the mathematical validity of Bell's theorem, then you must reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem to your experiment.

That is a very interesting claim. I hope you will flesh it out.

17 minutes ago, uncool said:

then you must reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem to your experiment.

I don't understand how this can be a critique. Have I not said the same clearly enough just a few posts ago to you specifically?

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

I reject Bell's Theorem for as far as it concerns the example I have analyzed and the claim I have presented.

2 hours ago, Dalo said:

I am not ready yet to widen the claim to the whole domain of entanglement situations considered by quantum theory. I lack the expertise to analyze in sufficient details every example. The drawing I presented above does show that it does not really matter which property or which particle is considered. But it is a general argument which I would find very difficult to defend in all cases.

People who would agree with me and at the same time have the necessary expertise would have a much easier time applying my analysis to other examples.

Just now, uncool said:

I strongly disagree; this is an attempt at precision, something that you - of all people here - should welcome. It is an attempt to get at the heart of what you think the problem is - the precise place where you think philosophy and the current descriptions of quantum theory (including entanglement) disagree. 

Disagree you may, but that does not change the fact that I have not confronted in this thread the issues you mention. They are certainly fundamental and my own claim has certainly consequences. But that is not the subject of this thread, even if those issues are strongly related to it.

Just now, uncool said:

I see no general claims in that question. "something that runs counter to that" could mean a counterexample.

I think it would be easier if you presented your own opinions. Second guessing mine is not helping any of us.

Just now, uncool said:

Then we are back to where I started. Namely: 

You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why, philosophically, should a classical theory require such a mathematical description - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?

wrong. I have no such general claims. I am, once again, limiting myself to the very direct question whether the example given by Maudlin of the entanglement of photons is correct. My answer in short is negative.

13 minutes ago, uncool said:

I never said that it did. In fact, that was the point of one of the first questions I asked you. 

Then we have gotten exactly to the point of the question I asked you. You seem to agree (or at least, are refusing to dispute) the mathematical correctness of the theorem - but instead, whether the mathematical assumptions of the theorem match physical reality (or alternatively, what is meant by a "classical (local) theory"). Which is exactly what I asked with my integral question.

Glad this point has been taken care of.

9 minutes ago, uncool said:

I am not asking you to analyze its mathematical structure. I am asking you only whether you accept the mathematical proof in it. Either the proof is valid, or it is not; whether that proof is being applied to a specific example or not is irrelevant. So I ask you again: do you accept that the proof is valid? 

One could also say that the example I have presented does not fall under the cases treated by the theorem. Take your pick. I have no desire to attack or defend Bell's theorem because it would mean analyzing it mathematically, which I cannot do. I react to its general meaning and assumptions. Feel free to draw your own conclusions whether my position is justified or not.

You seem to think that if a mathematical argumentation is mathematically or logically valid then it has to be true, and that is a very wrong assumption. That is why there is such a thing as pure mathematics. The validity of a mathematical theorem does not say anything about its empirical usefulness or even its general truth. It only shows that correct conclusions have been logically deduced from the initial assumptions, and that the calculations are correct. That does not mean that the assumptions are necessarily true.

And that is the whole point. Bell did not show that von Neumann could not calculate or could not think logically. He doubted his (von Neumann's) initial assumptions and presented his own.

The matter therefore is a matter which assumptions you start with, and that is not a mathematical decision.

Just now, uncool said:

So to be clear: do you accept the mathematical proof of Bell's theorem? Your problem is with the assumptions of the theorem, not with the proof itself?

I reject Bell's Theorem for as far as it concerns the example I have analyzed and the claim I have presented. 

As I have just told you a couple of posts ago, I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's Theorem, but expressing an opinion, a judgment, on its implications. And that is, whether it be an assumption or a conclusion, the idea that both systems are different and in need of hidden variables, be they local or non-local, for their explanation.

6 minutes ago, uncool said:

That's not how theorems work. If there is a special case where the theorem doesn't work, then it's not a theorem (assuming the consistency of mathematics as a whole).

There are two possibilities. Either 1) you doubt the proof of the theorem, or 2) you doubt that the hypotheses of the theorem apply. Do you know which one?

It is the assumption that both systems (photon + filter) are different, and that we still get the famous (empirical, therefore undeniable) statistical regularities. I say that they are not different according to the assumptions that:

1) both photons have the same polarization,

2) both filters are identical.

If you accept those assumptions, they show according to me that both systems are equal and that it is therefore not surprising that they react in a predictable way, conform the known statistical regularities. That makes the distinction between local and non-local, and the necessity to appeal to hidden variables, both meaningless.

1 minute ago, uncool said:

What, exactly, do you mean by "reject [Bell's theorem]"? Do you accept that the theorem - the mathematical theorem - has been proven?

 

I was guessing that you were doubting the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, because if you accept both the mathematics and the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, then the only consistent possibility is to accept the physics. 

No, I do not think that Bell's Theorem has been proven in this special case. If I did, I would not advance my claim. Is that clear enough for you?

And I certainly do not doubt the relationship between Physics and Mathematics. Not believing that Bell's theorem is necessarily valid is not rejecting all mathematics.

22 minutes ago, uncool said:

To clarify a little bit: in the proof of Bell's no-go theorem, the following assumption is made:

 

A classical (local hidden variable) theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int X(\lambda) p(\lambda) d \lambda[/math], according to some (hidden) probability measure p. On the other hand, a quantum theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int \langle \phi | X | \phi\rangle[/math], according to Bohr's rules. The theorem is then that there is a limit to the outcomes from any classical theory that doesn't appear for a quantum theory, as defined there, and therefore (since our experiments match Bohr's rules) that a quantum theory is necessary (or rather, a classical theory is insufficient).

 

You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why should a classical theory require such an integral - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?

I have made it perfectly clear from the start, and if you want I will produce quotes from this thread, that I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem, or that of von Neumann's argumentation.

In fact, I emphatically declared that the problem of hidden variables cannot be solved by mathematical means. The fact alone that there are at least two theories, von Neumann's and Bell's, with completely different conclusions, makes my position at least plausible.

My claim is that the whole concepts of local and non-local are wrong in the context of the experiment described by Maudlin. I am not ready yet to widen the claim to the whole domain of entanglement situations considered by quantum theory. I lack the expertise to analyze in sufficient details every example. The drawing I presented above does show that it does not really matter which property or which particle is considered. But it is a general argument which I would find very difficult to defend in all cases.

So, no, I am not pretending anything special about Bell's Theorem, except that I reject it in this special case, as well as von Neumann's. Whether one or the other can be proven mathematically to be correct in other situations is beyond anything I could claim.

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Mainstream science is supported by (lots of) evidence. 

You can't argue against it with half-baked ideas based on an inability/unwillingness to understand either the science or the theory. All your threads come down to: "I want science to be wrong so I am going to make up some fairy stories that contradict the evidence; therefore the evidence must be wrong".

You would need to present some actual evidence, not what you think should happen in any given experiment.

You are wasting everyone's time. Including your own.

This is the same avoiding strategy I have met everywhere. Using mainstream science is legitimate, as long as it is to show how and why some arguments are not valid. To use it as a shield is unacceptable. Mainstream science does not dispense you from the need to present valid arguments. Just saying "science says" is a simple variation on "Simon says".

It is childish and unworthy of a Science Forum.

***

It is funny how I am accused from all sides of denying Science while my position concerning entanglement, if certainly not identical to Einstein's, is much closer to his ideas than to Bohr's. It seems that everybody in this forum still clings to the idea that Bohr's interpretation is the only correct one. I wonder then who is denying a great part of the developments of Physics and Quantum theory since Bohm and Bell.

My claim is certainly not extraordinary. The denial, which I have certainly made clear, of the concept of entanglement, is absolutely not unscientific. It forms the basis of the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), in which they emphatically reject the idea of entanglement.

I am therefore in good company, and not ashamed of it. Let those who throw stones remember that the time where everybody thought that Bohr was right and Einstein wrong is long past.

I am in fact defending Einstein's position with different arguments.

Who could blame me without showing that my arguments are wrong?

Assuming they are wrong from the outset because I reject entanglement would be the epitome of intellectual prejudice.

"The reader should need no expertise in mathematics or previous knowledge of physics to obtain an understanding, not only of the main conceptual factors involved in discussing quantum theory, but also of the disagreements which still exist."

Andrew Whitaker: Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum dilemma.", 1996. A highly recommended book.

Just now, Mordred said:

It only applies to physics if the physics is understood in the first place.

Here we go again.

be well too.

Just now, Mordred said:

thank you for your answer be well its clear by that you have no interest in understanding the actual science. Why didn't you post this in the Philosophy forum instead of a science forum?

Is that your main objection to my claim?

It concerns the philosophy of physics, and therefore also physics.

Just now, Mordred said:

Ah but I am not tellling you how to think I am trying to increase your knowledge set so you can properly understand what it is your talking about Otherwise you will keep making mistakes

You are telling me how to think because any deviation from mainstream science is a mistake.

I will be the last one to pretend that I cannot be wrong. Mainstream science is not a cult one simply disavows. One needs to have very serious arguments before they can be taken seriously. I understand the need for me to defend those arguments. I even understand the intensity and the emotionality of many reactions. It makes me look more critically at my own arguments.

What I find unacceptable is that many people in this forum think that just by repeating what mainstream science says they have proven somebody wrong.

That is an unscientific attitude, and also quite understandable among students who really do not need all the doubts while they are blocking for their exams.

I expect more from you. You should know that just advancing mainstream theory is in itself not an argument.

You systematically, in my threads, refuse to look seriously at what I have to say . Your first and last reaction is: but science says...

I find that very frustrating. I would like you to keep your convictions, but also to respect mine and start a real dialogue. You would make more chance of convincing me.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

read this post again and tell me what I should think about how you wrote it after all the assistance I tried to provide you.

You basically discounted all effort I put into helping you understand the experiment as meaningless. Which is false you need to understand the experiment to draw any logical conclusions on it. This was right after you discounted the fact that on my first post this thread I asked your permision to discuss what a correlation function is in the first place. The problem here is your trying to use metaphysics to answer physics type problems without taking the time to understand the physics this is useless and utterly pointless. I don't mind metaphysics but only when the person understands the physics he is discussing

You are repeating yourself. And you are at the same time contradicting yourself. It is obvious from what you have quoted me saying that I did not change anything to the description of the problem since the beginning.

Your assistance I accept to help me understand mathematical or physics rules I do not understand. It is not here to tell me how to think.

Just now, Mordred said:

You didn't specify that did you. Instead you allowed that to discount that at some point that there is more than one polarity state involved in the experiment.

Mordred I do not know what you are talking about. I have not changed one iota to the description of the problem starting from the first post.

14 hours ago, uncool said:

Why not?

Evolution theory also does not answer my concerns. Am I supposed to explain why?

Anyway, I think determinism is more than sufficient. It does not need to be super.

Just now, Mordred said:

No I am responding directly to the quotes and not even applying the EPR experiment as I have no way of knowing for sure if he is even referring to that experiment specifically.

 

Then I do not understand your objections concerning identical initial polarization.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

again there is incongruities in the statements your quoting. Misaligned filters can and do affect polarizations. What is the title of the book your reading he has several

I am quoting the article by Maudlin you have shared with us.

  1408.1826 (1).pdf

I think you are confusing two things:

1) what happens when two similar photons go through different filters? The results will of course be different. But the correlations between both photons is what it is all about!

2) Before going though their own filters, both photons have the same polarization.