juanrga

I know that it's because of their different atomic structure, but why? I think I have an idea of why specific properties are present in some elements, like radioactivity(because of their instability) or reactivity with other elements(because of their electron configuration) or atomic weight (because of the number of protons and neutrons)...etc. But how do any of those(or something else I'm most likely unaware of) explain color, texture, melting points and boiling points, density, and many other properties I can't think of at the moment(what are the other properties?). Like, why is gold's color different than silver?

 

I don't know much about science, besides a few things I read here and there. What field of science would answer these questions? I figured it would be chemistry, but would physics give a more basic answer, as it underlines chemistry?

Colour, texture, melting points and boiling points, density, and similar many other properties of substances are given by the electronic configuration of the atoms. E.g. colour depends of the occupied and available orbitals to electrons. Using quantum chemistry methods one can obtain the orbitals and their energies and then predict the colour that a substance will have before synthetizing it in the lab. The same about other properties, e.g. boiling points depend on the intermolecular forces and bondings, which in its turn depend of the electronic structure and molecular geometry. Boiling points can be also computed or estimated. The explaining on why gold's colour is different than silver is given in relativistic quantum chemistry courses.

Also, how many years would it take me to have a firm understanding of physics? I'm thinking of starting out soon. How would you suggest I begin? I didn't think I was smart enough so I haven't bothered up until now. How hard is it going to be?

 

Thanks anyway.

A basic general understanding? 4-5 years. Specialised understanding in some field? 4-5 more.

i have heard of something called the particle wave duality.

Yes, but it is a misnomer

Now energy shouldn't technically be classified as a particle.

Never was classified as such. Energy is one property of particles.

Energy is what we get as a bi-product of mass being converted.

Energy can be obtained in situations where mass is constant.

So, in my opinion, if what people call the particle wave duality exists, then the smallest particle i could think of should be light.

Ligth is made of particles named photons. Photons are massless particles.

Thanks a lot, Juangra. I also had a short correspondence with Caclav Brukner from the same Universcity, he toldd me that all data can be intepreted without relying on Many-Worlds assumption

Of course we do not need it!

Hello All,

 

Recenlt I've read mostly about "many -worlds". As I understand, it is still not universally accepted interpretation, but there are some reports that certain experiments simply proved it, like Vaidman- Elitzur bomb test, Zelingher interferometer, vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku)...

 

There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven...

 

So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, other say that that these "worlds" were observed, still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explained without resorting to "many-worlds".

 

What do You think of this article?:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces

 

I've read personally, that S.Weinberg changed his position, and now regard every interpretation unsatisfactory, and somwhere I've read that S.Hawking also rejected MWI now...

So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is proven?...

You would check Neumaier's FAQ entry about MWI. I completely agree with his conclusion:

The presence of such arguments that flatly contradict other statements shows that MWI is a smokescreen without a consistent mathematics behind.

Individual quantum is a particle which moves in a wave like manner. My question is: DOES THIS WAVE LIKE MOTION OCCURS IN AN UP & DOWN FASHION I.e. in the manner of a sea wave OR DOES IT OCCUR IN A SIDE TO SIDE FASHION I.e. in the manner of a side winder snake.your thoughts?

Wave-particle duality is a misnomer. Quantum particles do not move in wavelike manner but in a quantum manner.

In fact albeit earlier fathers of quantum mechanics as DeBroglie and Schrödinger incorrectly believed that [math]\Psi[/math] is a wave, [math]\Psi[/math] it is not a wave but a mathematical function defined in an abstract Hilbert space. The correct interpretation of [math]\Psi[/math] was given by Born as wavefunction as amplitude of probability.

The quantum motion of quantum particles is completely different to the motion of sea waves (which is purely classical motion).

That's what I said a quantum system can be prepared in a superposition of states with its properties undefined or unknown.

No. You said "the observable [...] can be prepared". That was nonsense.

The final state after the measurement is indeed a superposition of states

No, the final state is an eigenstate of the measured value.

and people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics know that this leads to contradiction to the linear evolution of the Schroedinger equation

Any texbook in QM explains that measurements are not described by the Schrödinger law, but by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s.

when an irreversible outcome appears when an observation is made and the measurement problem can only be solved by either finding a sound interpretation or by changing the theory itself.

Measurement are described by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s and dynamical laws for that postulate have been developed since then.

Penrose, Bernard and a wide range of experts know that there is a contradiction

Both are notoriously wrong and their inconsistent ideas never worked.

and the measurement problem still persists

As I said it is not completely solved, but we already have dynamical laws that work in many measurement scenarios. E.g. Ghirardi equation.

The reason the measurement problem persists up until now is because physicists don't have a model for the conscious observer and the theory demands it.

Nonsense. The problem persists because we do not still found a nonlinear dynamical law valid for arbitrarily complex measurement scenarios. No observer is required because is unneeded.

"All information is only encoded in joint properties. Thus, an entangled state is a representation of the relations between two possible measurements on the two members of the entangled pair. In the most simple case, the state [math] | \psi^- \rangle [/math] is a representation of the prediction that in any basis whatsoever, the two photons will be found to have orthogonal states with none of the photons having any well-defined state before measurement."

Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices).

In the absence of any measurements the sub systems doesn't exist

Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory.

information is far more superior than matter, mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are not physical properties instead they are just bits of information and they are abstract.

Nonsense. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are well-known physical properties.

Bohr's complementarity principle is the very foundation of quantum mechanics and it will be taught to students of the future and it will not go away. Don't post your biased wrong views here.

Wrong. As Klein reports the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. The natural tendency is that it would be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises).

All evidence is showing that future is fixed and it already exists.

Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given".

I know and I myself stated that physicists working on quantum gravity do not treat space-time as primary concepts

Unrelated to what you said and I corrected.

but that doesn't mean that the information to construct the block universe

Wrong. There is not block universe, because the generator of time translations is not zero.

He is not misunderstood,

He shows his well-known misunderstandings.

Max Born or Bohm?

Born. You are right.

Any ways Schroedinger initially insisted that the wave is real wave

And he was completely wrong and unable to accept that nature was very different than he believed said the famous phrase: I don't like it [quantum mechahics] and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

Of course nature does not care about Schrödinger beliefs...

Brains are part of the observable universe but minds are always part of the realm of numinous.

Brains are the 'hardware' and minds the 'software'. Both are in the observable universe.

Its a fact that photons separated over large distances instantaneously influence each other

There is not superluminal signals between photons.

there is evidence that a future choice does affect the results of the past measurements and if the ordering of the events is taken to consideration then the future choice indeed seems to have been fixed or pre-determined

All experimental evidence is compatible with ordinary causality and with the stochastic nature of universe, where "future is not given". Determinism is an approximation.

That's a limitation of modern science or current science that it doesn't fully describe individual events

No knowledge system "fully describes" anything because we always work with approximations. This is explained in science 101, the first days.

and says that the outcomes of nature are probabilistic but it doesn't mean that a different model from different philosophical systems provide a complete model of the world.

Wrong. First the stochastic nature of universe is intrinsic, not the result of ignorance. Second, philosophical systems do not work and that is the reason for which were substituted by science... several centuries ago.

Special relativity is completely deterministic and the evolution of the Schroedinger equation is also completely deterministic and the stochastic nature only appears in the act of measurement which we don't completely understand and hence call it the measurement problem.

Wrong. Special relativity is completely deterministic because is a classical theory developed before quantum theory and chaos theory. Quantum field theory includes special relativity and provides a non-deterministic relativistic description. The stochastic nature of phenomena appears beyond measurements. Measurements are not acts, are processes. We understand measurements rather well and the measurement problem has been basically solved in recent years.

Recently Roger Penrose has called the measurement problem as the "elephant in the room" and I don't think physicists will ever be able to solve this problem because at the heart of this problem is the human mind and this mind is the product of a divine God and it solely belongs to religion and the numinous.

Nonsense.

Human understanding and mathematical insight is completely different than a machine and a machine will never be able to achieve strong AI

We are complex biochemical molecular-based machines.

because human understanding involves non-computable processes and these processes don't take place inside the brain

Nonsense. Mental processes take place at the brain.

the human mind could not have evolved through natural selection.

Nonsense, the human mind is a consequence of natural selection.

All religions of the world knew that mind is separate from the brain and that intellect exists in platonic realms and religion holds the key for the final puzzle in understanding how nature works and its going to change the way we see the world and our notions about reality.

Nonsense. Religion does not provide systematic/testable knowledge. History shows that all the religions have falsified regarding the objective nature of our universe.

First came the observers and their minds

Nonsense. Observers appeared in universe only recently. Universe is much older than observers.

This hypothesis was put forward way back in 1975 itself by Ernest Lester Smith and all scientific evidence is growing in favour of this hypothesis when you accept the fact that information is the basic stuff of this universe and hence intelligence came first and it is an accepted fact when you see the amount of evidence in quantum information science and bio-informatics.

Nonsense. All scientific evidence says the contrary. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Human intelligence appeared in the universe only recently, as everyone knowns.

I am not attacking science instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

You are attacking both.

Just making predictive models is not an understanding of how nature works, these models should make sense and it should give added explanations and in that sense physicists have no complete model of the world and they have no clue has to what the nature of reality really is and they should concentrate about the mess in their fields rather than making baseless comments about other disciplines like Philosophy and Religion when they themselves have no idea as to what the nature of reality is. I think sooner or later philosophers will take over as true physicists.

Nonsense. Unlike some religious zealots and crazy philosophers who still talk about the "Truth", physicists know the limits of science and of current theories. The lack of a final scientific theory does not open the door to introduce any nonsense from religion/philosophy. Philosophers will continue doing philosophy not science.

QM has already shattered the belief of working scientists that this empirical reality exists independent of the human mind and facts will always be facts. Its the very notion of scientific method itself is what is saying that scientific realism is false.

Nonsense. QM is perfectly compatible with empirical reality, does not require humans, and was developed (and is currently tested) using the scientific method.

the only real thing is the human mind not the human brain which is only a state of mind and different observers agree with each other about the results in empirical reality because each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and hence is responsible for the retorspective construction of this empirical rality.

Nonsense. Human brains are real. A brain is not a state of a mind, mind is the 'software' and the brain the 'hardware'. Reality exists without minds.

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of experiments in quantum mechanics

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of any experiment. This is why experiments are carefully designed, but this is again well-known.

The point is that the two photons of Alice and Bob know what choice victor is going to make in prior and behave according to it and therefore free will is a stubborn illusion.

Nonsense. Photons do not "know". Neither any signal is sent from Alice or Bob to them. Free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of our universe.

In practical situations the observable of a quantum object, say for example spin can be prepared

No. Observables are not "prepared". Systems are.

The observable R of a quantum object I assuming that the observable for this case is spin will be [math] | u + d\rangle[/math]

Your the-observable R-will-be-a-state-vector is nonsense, because observables are not state vectors. Moreover, [math] | u + d\rangle[/math] is not a spin eigenvector.

Now during the measurement process the final state of the quantum system + measurement apparatus is given by

 

[math] | u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle \rightarrow \Lambda (t_I , t_F) [| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle] = | F u + d \overline\alpha\rangle = 1/\sqrt 2 [|F u \overline\alpha\rangle + |F d \overline\alpha\rangle] [/math]

 

Which means that the final state or the pointer position of the measurement apparatus is neither pointing to the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-up state nor the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-down state and also not in any of the other states, therefore even the macroscopic measuring apparatus doesn't exist in a definite macroscopic configuration

Wrong. The final state after the measurement is not a superposition state but the state written before [math]|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle[/math], where [math]|I;r\rangle [/math] is a system eigenvector of the measured value for the observable R (spin, energy, position, or otherwise).

and the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation or the time-development operator will be distorted when an act of measurement which is an irreversible process is made by an observer and a particular value pops up into existence.

The irreversible process is described by [math]\Lambda[/math], which is not [math]U[/math]. The requirement of an observer is nonsense. [math]\Lambda[/math] does not require any observer and, evidently, there is none in the theory.

quantum mechanics doesn't allow one to pre-assign any attributes or observables to a quantum system prior to the measurements

Wrong. A simple counterexample is a system prepared in an eigenvector of the measured observable. This example was discussed before, but you do not read.

and if one cannot assign the attributes which make up a quantum system then there is no sense in assuming that the quantum system exists in the absence of any measurements.

Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector [math]|\Psi\rangle[/math] or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices).

This is how entanglement works, the sub-systems or photon pairs cannot be treated as existing separate systems, they should be treated as a single holistic system

Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory.

Bohr's complementarity principle is an inherent fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and it will continue to be taught in the future.

Wrong. It plays no role in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based in a number of postulates, none of which is a "Bohr's complementarity principle". Klein reports how the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. In one or two decades it will be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises).

No, the Andromeda Paradox put forward by Roger Penrose shows that the future is fixed and what ever has to happen it will happen, its inevitable.

Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given".

All of space-time is laid out in one go

Wrong. Spacetime is emergent as quantum gravity and other modern research shows.

Its not just a metaphor but a fact that Physics is wrong and the universe is working in a very different way than anyone can imagine.

 

Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

Another interview where Penrose shows his well-known misunderstandings.

This finally leads to the arithmetic paradox of Schroedinger.

 

"In Mind and Matter and in My View of the World, Schroedinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one?"

Ironically, Schrödinger was notorious by his serious misunderstandings of the same theory that he helped to develop. E.g. Schrödinger never understood the physical meaning of the wavefunction. The correct physical interpretation was given by Bohm.

Even simple machines and even rocks are subjected to the same rules of a quantum system and the whole observable universe can be treated as a quantum system and therefore a mind is albeit necessary for the existence of this empirical reality.

Minds and brains are part of the observable universe.

In delayed choice experiments it is an experimental fact that even the choices of the observers are part of the complete quantum system and it includes the quantum object, the measurement apparatus and the choices of the observers and one needs to take all these into account in order to describe individual events of the quantum object and it doesn't make sense without observers. It doesn't show that we are in control of nature instead it is nature which is in control of our choices, we don't have free will.

 

Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

 

We don't have free will and nature knows it.

Wrong. Delayed choice experiments are explained by quantum mechanics without observers. Human free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of the universe. Nature is not deterministic.

We know there is no realism because there are experiments which have tested reality and realism has failed and it is realism which is at stake here. Nature has violated Bell's inequality and has confirmed the results of Kochen-specker theorem owing to the belief that in the absence of any measurements a quantum system doesn't exist out there in the physical world.

This is nonsense. The ordinary theory of measurement (which is used to interpret such experiments) is as follow (I will discuss here the simplified model, the generalization is tedious but does not change the main results)

Suppose we wish to measure the observable R of the quantum object I, for which there must be a complete set of eigenvectors

[math]R |I;r\rangle = r |I;r\rangle[/math]

Denote a set of states for the measurement apparatus II by [math]|II;\alpha\rangle[/math], where the eigenvalue [math]\alpha[/math] is the appropiate pointer of the apparatus.

Of course, the quantum system exists before the measurement is made. If the initial state of the system + measurement apparatus is [math]|I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle[/math] then the measurement changes this to the final state

[math] |I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle = \Lambda |I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle[/math]

where [math]\Lambda[/math] is the time-development operator for the duration of the interaction between system and apparatus.

Its the very choice of the experimenter on where to place the detector determines the part of the quantum system which manifests as reality for us, this is the Bohr's complementarity principle, there is no quantum world, no absolute reality, the only thing that we know are detector clicks that we observe through the naked eye and that's the reality which nature gives us for us and this reality doesn't exist independent of observations and therefore we cannot say how nature really is, it remains forever unknown to science.

More nonsense. Fortunately as noted by Klein the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years.

Yes, all evidence is pointing to an observer-participatory universe, the choice of the experimenter determines what reality manifests out into existence which wasn't out there before, we not only don't have free will but also nature seem to know what choice the experimenter had made and accordingly it provides a reality for us. Its a self-excited circuit. These are facts established from experiments and its time to take Bernard's work seriously and there by take investigation on religion seriously.

Untrue.

The correct formulation of quantum mechanics based on facts established from experiments doesn't allow you to place the events of Big Bang and the origin of life forms before the origin of observers, the observers came first and then the universe was actualized, particles don't exist out there in the physical world instead they are a reality which manifests based on the choices of our experiments and these experiments produce reality which wasn't there before and therefore it must be emphasized that reality has not been given to us as it is, the ultimate reality is Veiled.

This is all a collection of nonsense

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

I am desperate to keep this thread alive?

Yes.

Its funny how scientists sit inside their laboratories and laugh at the notion of zombies rather than doing field work which shows what is reality and how nature really is.

What you write is really funny.

As said earlier L.Ballentine makes an assumption that quantum mechanical formalism should only be applied to identically prepared ensemble of systems but it has been shown that the quantum wavefunction applies to indivisible quantum systems like an individual electron.

Unrelated to what was said, therefore I will not waste time answering this.

Then there is no justification in classifying and attributing them as elementary and composite particles of the standard model.

Nonsense. Electrons and quarks are elementary particles in the Standard Model.

Zurek the leading theorist of quantum decoherence recognizes that the ultimate solution to the problem of measurement must involve "a model for the conscious observer". This is where science inevitably need to resort into studying religion.

Contrary to what Zurek believed for decades, we knew (and said to him) that decoherence alone does not explain measurement. Excelent if he is now accepting this fact. Now he needs to learn a bit more and understand why conscious observers are not needed in quantum theory.

LoL, Bernard D'Espagnat was always way ahead of everyone and he has once again shown that by accurately establishing the Bell experiments and its implications that when it comes to theoretical physics there can be no one more rigid than Bernard D'Espagnat. He is absolutely right.

STATEMENTS FROM SCIENTISTS ON BERNARD d'ESPAGNAT WINS 2009 TEMPLETON PRIZE

The own foundations claims that the Templeton prize is awarded to a person who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". Formerly the Prize was named the "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion" and the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities".

The prize has been criticized: British biologist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". Sean M. Carroll criticized his colleagues for taking Templeton research grants when they did not support Templeton's beliefs. Martinus J. G. Veltman, the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics, suggested the prize "bridg[ed] the gap between sense and nonsense".

Bernard did never win any important scientific award, so far as I know he only won the pseudo-religious prize.

"measurements and observers cannot be fundamental notions in a theory that seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed."

 

- Murray Gell-Mann

I have emphasized precisely this. Why do you repeat what I say to you?

All evidence and proved theorems have shown that one cannot just keep aside observers and make any meaningful statements about nature, observers are an integral part of the cosmos.

I have emphasized that observers are not anything special but part of nature. Why do you repeat what I say to you?

Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?

It is indeed true that decoherent histories are inconsistent.

 

Decoherent histories and realism

The answer to the above paper is found in Consistent Quantum Realism

A recent claim by Bassi and Ghirardi that the consistent (decoherent) histories approach cannot provide a realistic interpretation of quantum theory is shown to be based upon a misunderstanding of the single-framework rule: they have replaced the correct rule with a principle which directly contradicts it. It is their assumptions, not those of the consistent histories approach, which lead to a logical contradiction.

Try again

Immortal, I am still waiting for your answers, rather than very, very unrelated quotes stuck in a post which says nothing to deny what the quote actually presents. You have some work to do. You will need to go out and bring a bit of hard, cold evidence back and put it on the barrelhead here. I am waiting.

Yes, immortal also took a quote from mine out of context, ignored any question that I did to him in the message from where he got the quote and used the quote at the start of his new preaching to give the appearance (to outsiders) that he is debating with us. It was all so obvious that I did not even mention this in my above reply.

Finally, why censor different ways of thinking?

Censorship is typical of religious zealots who cannot accept that their religious views are wrong.

Science is based on debate and peer-review. The rejection of nonsense is a logical consequence.

I see. I will yet give a touch of the benefit of a doubt a bit longer, and see. I cannot, in the same breath, so fully and drastically disagree with the notion entertained. (Oh, and in appreciation, you helped me find an error in my spelling--which happens at times--which I have now corrected in the main text. Thanks !)

Thank you! Let me add that I think that you would also change "I don't speak likes" by "I don't speak lies".

Additionally, it is a very secure understanding that what you had presented there is not true. In light of that being the case, the author of such nonsense is either lying, or is hopelessly mislead into a certain blindness towards what is securely known and understood--otherwise gross error. For one to verbatim assert that with the exact following words, "I don't speak likes," one can be expressly asserting that they do not orally communicate that a matter is such as A, while being fully and consciously aware that the matter is actually B--in other words, they do not SPEAK lies. That assertion could be held to be true while written communication would not be participating in the asserted statement. A person would not be lying (asserting a known truth to not be so) if (s)he were to assert that they did not SPEAK lies, all the while communicating lies in written form. (Because writing is not speaking) The wording, "I do not tell lies," would be a different thing, however.

I think that he is both "lying" and "hopelessly mislead".

I am awaiting your very carefully researched, mature and rationally thought out answer to the questions which you still have not responded with answers towards, or to.

Immortal has avoided almost all the questions made to him in the last 200 posts. I desire you good luck.

It wasn't just a blind attack, its something which I remember from my past meet off with you.

 

http://www.sciencefo...788#entry689788

Your ad hominem attack was so blind that looks like a desperate effort to maintain alive your zombie thread.

The above link shows that what I am saying in that message is that I am using certain formulations of quantum mechanics in my research work. Moreover, I cite therein L. Ballentine textbook, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development for details about those formulations of quantum mechanics.

We humans can only understand particles as billiard balls and waves as smeared out oscillating entities and when some entity behaves differently than a particle or a wave then there is no justification for calling it a particle.

The particles in particle physics are not billiard balls. Why do you insist again on confounding reality with classical reality?

Obviously Bernard's claim contradicts your research and hence you cannot swallow that fact. With all the recent experimental findings and facts electrons, protons, quarks cannot be thought of as self existent. Is that clear to you? They don't exist independent of measurements.

Obviously this is a collection of nonsense

You have indeed twisted the context of how the meaning of the word 'Myth' was used in this paper.

The discussion of the exact definition of myth is irrelevant, the important part is that the author clearly states that QM is perfectly compatible with realism.

and

here you quote in bold face something said to you before, that in older interpretations of QM it was incorrectly believed that the human observer had some special role. Why do you repeat what was said to you?

Of course, as the same author correctly concludes, human observers do not play any special role in QM.

Bernard's claims are not wrong in fact all evidence establishes Bernard's open realism on a firm ground.

Bernard is so right that his main award is a pseudo-religious prize awarded to nonsensical work.

Griffiths is a proponent of Consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which is adopted by a minority of physicists and the corrections to his formalism have been made in the quantum theoretical literature and not seriously considered. A set of no-go theorems contradict such an interpretation of quantum physics.

You continue showing that you do not know what you are writing.

He is not a mere "proponent of" but one of his originators. Popularity has a historical component because this modern approach was born in the 90s (i.e. six decades after the old Copenhagen interpretation) and is still under development by several experts including the famous Nobel Prize for physics Murray Gell-Mann (the father of the quarks) for application in sophisticated fields such as quantum cosmology. Moreover, the number of quantum cosmologists is very inferior to the number of solid state or molecular physicists. I do mean that not everyone needs to know this modern approach.

As is well-known, the consistent histories interpretation is an extension/improvement of the old Copenhagen interpretation advocated by your 'experts'.

Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in evidence, full of mis-understanding, and driven by zealotry.

 

Congrats Immortal!, you have finally put forward the only solid piece of evidence to your claims of mystical powers! It's a zombie! The thread is dead, but you keep resurrecting the empty corpse. You chant the same lines over and over...and finally a zombie arises!

Completely agree on that this is a zombie thread!

One example is enough to show how much intellectually dishonest some of the members in this forum are and how they take a research paper out of context to prove that they are right so that they can maintain their stubborn flawed position. There is no point in arguing with such members.

 

Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts

 

Like I always said from the beginning, there is no accepted consensus among the scientific community on these topics and just because some crazy stubborn scientists doesn't want to give up realism even though all evidence is pointing against realism the works of Bernard is considered to be nonsense or rubbish. I very well know who is intellectually honest and who is not.

The paper was cited when you did an ad hominem attack appealing that some member was doing "personal research" on the wave-particle duality myth. The paper shows that your charge was unfounded because there is literature on the wave-particle duality myth.

Evidently the paper does not support you. In fact, the paper says about your crazy belief on that QM implies there is no reality:

To conclude this section, QM does not prove that there is no reality besides the measured reality. Instead, there are several alternatives to it. In particular, such reality may exist, but then it must be contextual (i.e., must depend on the measurement itself.) The simplest (although not necessary) way to introduce such reality is to postulate it only for one or a few preferred quantum observables.

This is very very close to what Griffiths says in his textbook on quantum theory:

The idea of an independent reality had been challenged by philosophers long before the advent of quantum mechanics. However, the difficulty of interpreting quantum theory has sometimes been interpreted as providing additional reasons for

doubting that such a reality exists. In particular, the idea that measurements collapse wave functions can suggest the notion that they thereby bring reality into existence, and if a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave function (MQS state) of a measuring apparatus, this could mean that consciousness somehow plays a fundamental role in reality. However, once measurements are understood as no more than particular examples of physical processes, and wave function collapse as nothing more than a computational tool, there is no reason to suppose that quantum theory is incompatible with an independent reality, and one is back to the situation which preceded the quantum era. To be sure, neither quantum nor classical mechanics provides watertight arguments in favor of an independent reality.

 

In the final analysis, believing that there is a real world “out there”, independent of ourselves, is a matter of faith. The point is that quantum mechanics is just as consistent with this faith as was classical mechanics. On the other hand, quantum theory indicates that the nature of this independent reality is in some respects quite different from what was earlier thought to be the case.

Contrary to your laughable claims, all known experiments and physical theories such as QM are perfectly compatible with the existence of an external reality: physical reality.

Try again!

Before we move on I like to clarify some of my position on this matters which have been misrepresented or misunderstood. This is my thread and I hope I can have my own ideas.

 

Firstly, when I refer to Penrose I am not talking of his Orch-OR model because Penrose believes in some kind of hidden variable theory and experiments have already abandoned all hidden variable programs and the fact that all approaches to explain consciousness whether it is of microtubules in the axon ultrastructure or any other theory based on neural processing have failed shows that all these approaches are wrong. When I refer to Penrose I only stick with his mathematical arguments just because his Orch-OR model is wrong it doesn't change the fact that strong AI is impossible and human quantum teleportation is impossible and therefore my argument is in support of Penrose's mathematical arguments because our ancients knew what Mind is and they also knew that Intellect exists in platonic realms. I am not using science to prove religion instead I am using religion to correct science.

 

Secondly, I did not used QM to prove that quantum healing works or mind control works or telepathy works. No I didn't do that, that's again a misrepresentation of my views and I very well know how science works and how religion works. If anyone looks at my post #233 not a single word is talked about Quantum physics or non-locality. I am someone who know that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. That's wisdom, you can't find that in books. Wisdom traditions know neither about quantum mechanics nor they know about General Relativity and all they do is worship gods and have their own methodologies and its based on their own epistemology.

 

Thirdly, I very well know that Anton Zielinger is not supporting my views, Anton is not talking of the pleroma of God, is he? Its quite silly to say that I am quoting Anton in support of my views, I very well know that no one supports my radical views except Bernard D'Espagnat perhaps my only saviour who believes that religion can access the noumenon.

 

The reason why I refer to Anton Zielinger is simply because of this.

 

What is Reality? Is it out there?

 

Its a question which has been raised by him and it questions the very basis of Scientific enquiry and the answer to that question from the esoteric religions is an affirmative no, the external world doesn't exist independent of the human mind. I am saying that Religion can answer and solve some of the paradoxes and the thorny philosophical questions and not the other way around where one says that science proves religion. I am applying the methodologies of Esotericism and saying that it can answer or solve some of our problems in science.

Before you start the cycle of the nonsense once again, let me add that all of this was answered/corrected in the last 230+ posts.

For instance, you pretended to avoid criticism by appealing to the Orch-OR model, when we were not referring to that model. Concretely, I stated how Penrose's mathematical platonism is contrary to science, whereas another poster noted how his ideas about the mind are wrong.

counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured),

Again confirming what I said: "the ability to speak meaningfully of" is as a vague term as "the ability to assume the".

By pretending that such vague terms are "precise definitions", you show again your ignorance of modern scientific standards and specially your lack of familiarity with the precise definitions used in physics, particularly quantum mechanics.

Counterfactual definiteness is quite a common term in the literature of Bell theorems and experiments. The recent experiments have confirmed that it is counterfactual definiteness i.e the assumption of the existence of objects and properties even when they have not been measured that we need to give up. I have doubts that whether you have seriously studied QM or whether you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my credible claims.

A simple academic search by "Bell Theorem" gives 4030 results. Only 43 of them use the term "counterfactual definiteness", which is the one percent. One percent must be your own definition of "common", but it disagrees with everyone else definition. Moreover, I have checked Bell's book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" and he uses the term "counterfactual definiteness" zero (0) times in the entire book.

It is simply false that experiments have ruled out existence. Experiments say something different. Your misunderstanding of the experiments was already corrected before in this thread. Go back and read.

Einstein and his co-workers namely Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 concluded,

 

"If, without in any way disturbing the system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity."

 

This is the notion of Einstein's mathematical realism and this is the kind of realism we need to abandon.

And you repeat the same immortal mistake once again. First, I already pointed that Einstein was wrong in his EPR argument, but due to your ignorance of you did not notice. I will explain this to you: the failure of the EPR argument is what Weinberg did mean when he wrote "Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought." in the Physics Today article which I cited very often in this thread.

EPR in their criticism of quantum mechanics considered a naive notion of classical realism, which of course is incompatible with quantum reality. I will add that modern post-90s developments in the field of chaos have shown EPR naive conception of realism is in conflict even with classical reality.

As stated many times before, physical reality is essentially quantum, with classical reality arising only as approximation.

Your mistake is mentioned in modern textbooks (Griffiths):

Quantum mechanics is clearly superior to classical mechanics for the description of microscopic phenomena, and in principle works equally well for macroscopic phenomena. Hence it is at least plausible that the mathematical and logical structure of quantum mechanics better reflect physical reality than do their classical counterparts. If this reasoning is accepted, quantum theory requires various changes in our view of physical reality relative to what was widely accepted before the quantum era

You can continue equating "reality" with "classical reality" and then misinterpreting what quantum mechanics says about the world, but the facts will not change.

The truth of the matter is this.

 

"There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

 

This is the scientific fact. Perhaps you need to read a textbook which teaches QM based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

And without any surprise you repeat the same immortal mistake once again.

First, you honestly omit the citation. You got the above quote from New Scientist. The nonsenses found in this news of the sensationalist magazine were reported a few posts before. No need to repeat again.

Second, I already pointed that the old Copenhagen Interpretation is incorrect. This is not top-secret. This is even remarked in magazines as Physics Today. The wikipedia also has a section devoted to criticism of this old interpretation.

Third, several modern interpretations have been developed to correct the defects of the old interpretation. As I pointed in numerous occassions the role of measurements is de-emphasized in modern quantum mechanics. From Griffiths textbook:

At the same time it is worth emphasizing that there are other respects in which the development of quantum theory leaves previous ideas about physical reality unchanged, or at least very little altered. The following is not an exhaustive list, but indicates a few of the ways in which the classical and quantum viewpoints are quite similar:

 

1. Measurements play no fundamental role in quantum mechanics, just as they play no fundamental role in classical mechanics. In both cases, measurement apparatus and the process of measurement are described using the same basic mechanical principles which apply to all other physical objects and physical processes. Quantum measurements, when interpreted using a suitable framework, can be understood as revealing properties of a measured system before the measurement took place, in a manner which was taken for granted in classical physics. See the discussion in Chs. 17 and

18. (It may be worth adding that there is no special role for human consciousness in the quantum measurement process, again in agreement with

classical physics.)

Fourth, evidently no serious scientist will be abandoning the modern and corrected interpretation by the old and flawed one. Of course I am well aware that laymen as you reject the modern and corrected interpretation because conflicts with your laugdable religious beliefs.

Fiveth, your fixation by Zeilinger is also well-known. He gave a recent interview at the German Newspaper "Die Zeit" Let me translate you some paragraphs (bold mine):

Anton Zeilinger... attracts mystics like light attracts moths, "quantum healers" or "quantum doctors" refer to him. "I am sorry," says Zeilinger, "there's nothing I can do about this." At the Documenta he will try to defend his research against such interpretations.

He says about the relation between art and science:

Scientists and artists have a lot in common, says Zeilinger: "Intuition and creativity are their most important tools, it is all about new approaches for the study of reality." But there is a point where [scientists and artists] differ: Science demands testability. And they have a claim of truth. "We say things about the world that are simply right." But if contradictions occur, scientists sometimes just throw out their view of the world. That was the case with quantum theory which entirely changed physics a hundred years ago.

And says about recent experiments and the mind:

Entangled photons can be hundreds of kilometers apart. And yet, if one carries out a measurement on which to do something immediately to the other. The two are interconnected in a way that does not control the mind.

Therefore once again we find that one of your favourite experts is not supporting your nonsense. He apologizes for how his work is misinterpreted by "mystics" like yourself. Ignorant mystics would I add.

Yet physicists or even biologists don't have a model to model conscious thought and physicists have got no idea of how to unify a unrealistic theory of QM with GR.

Another post unrelated to what I wrote.

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said.

And once again you fail to differentiate classical reality from quantum reality in despite of what I wrote. It is evident that you are in religious-zealot mode, and your mind is blocked from reading what others write.

The last part of your post is also very laughable When will you return to post here about how you are sure that scientists of all the world are conspiring against your religious ideas and your revealed Truth?

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here.

Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation.

You must "very well know" a lot of wrong stuff, but that does not explain why you affirm that material by a Nobel winner published in Physics Today is my "personal bias". Don't worry I do not really wait an answer from you!

About the second part of your post, you show again your terrible ignorance of such topics. There are many modern references devoted to the myth of wave-particle duality. For instance this recent Foundations of Physics paper is well-known (bold from mine):

These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality...

Now after explaining the above issue "personal bias" (recall I know you will not retract but will continue being silly) you would explain us how a paper published in FoP by other author is my "personal research"

I don't like to trouble the scientific community but please don't be dogmatic and as Stephen Hawking asks, Is that the final word? Is that a true understanding of nature?

Another unrelated post plus your immortal misunderstanding of what is science or does.

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements.

Completely nonsensical answer showing that you do not understand what I wrote.

If Einstein was alive today he would be really angry with you.

Why would he be angry by me linking to an auction of a letter where Einstein dismisses "God" as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" and religion as "a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"?

At contrary he would be very happy that his ideas are so seriously considered and pay a high price. Would Einstein be hungry because he will becomes a target for your irrational attacks? Of course no

Nope, its a well defined term.

 

Counterfactual definiteness

And your link confirms what I said. First that this is not essential to quantum mechanics, but only found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Second, that this is a vague term: "the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements" is not a precise definition by any standard. Your counter-claim reflects, once again, how far you are from physics standards and how ignorant you are of quantum mechanics.

The Einstein's notion of mathematical realism is wrong and its a proved fact now. Wake up to the truth.

I wrote about quantum mechanical realism. You reply with something unrelated about Einstein's mathematical realism. This time you forgot to say something about intellectual honesty...

We cannot speak anything about quantum mechanical reality without in the context of the measuring device and the arrangement of the measuring device and in the absence of such measurements quantum mechanical reality makes no sense at all and this is a fact established from experiments.

This is your immortal misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

It is true that the role of measurement devices was over-hyped in earlier interpretations of quantum mechanics developed when this new stuff was not still completely understood. But our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased a lot of in last 60 years.

In modern formulations/interpretations, measuring devices are just quantum systems and measurements just a kind of processes. The modern textbook cited about 100 posts ago explains how our modern understanding of quantum mechanics does not require any special role for measurements and/or observers.

Blame the science reporter and the magazine, don't blame me. Instead of reading what the experimental results have concluded and what the researchers are saying you seem to be very much fond of reading what the science reporter is saying.

This is another instance of how you avoid what was written...

However for the first time it actually makes sense to show some sympathy towards Bernard D'Espagnat and the ideas of these foundations and they are just holding a logically possible hypothesis which is a God hypothesis which physicists have ignored or rejected such a hypothesis just purely based on their personal taste and just squabbling against other interpretations without realizing that religion can give a solution to it and answer their questions if they look into it.

D'Espagnat ideas have received the sympathy from an organization known by awarding nonsensical work.

You must be well unaware of this, but physicists have the sane tendency to ignore useless hypothesis as the "God hypothesis" by evident reasons to all of us.

What should be focused and emphasized from the experimental results of that paper is that there is no absolute reality at the level of quantum mechanical reality and we need to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level.

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

That's your personal bias

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here. :lol:

The recent experiments have casted some doubts about our place in the cosmos and we need a radical new revision about our ideas on space and time.

Maybe you did dream that. But here, in the real word, the CERN site continues explaining to general public of what is made the world according to what experiments show us, as I said in the previous message.

but experiments done on particles which are stable shows that the attributes or the properties of these particles like spin, polarisation etc cannot have pre-determined values

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

Contrary to what you say that is the correct approach to religion and that's what religion is saying that the world is made of five elements and its very important to understand and define reality in the context of esoteric religions and as I said your personal distaste for religion will not turn religion to be false. Be rest assured of that.

It is unimportant if religion claims that the world is made of five elements or of 50000. Religion is useless to understand the physical nature of reality and no post in this forum will change this well-known fact.

P.S.: In the past you gave partial, out of context, quotations by Albert Einstein in an attempt to convince us that he agrees with your nonsense. I gave full quotations that show the contrary.

I know what you will like this link as well

http://abcnews.go.co...tarting-2165601

.... and quantum mechanics doesn't allow counterfactual definiteness, its the premise of realism that is actually wrong.

"Counterfactual definiteness" is a rather vague term (it lacks a precise definition) used in some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism.

Perhaps this is the hundredth time that you have quoted Steven Weinberg and still holding on to a biased position against Copenhagen Interpretation but actually the truth of the matter is that majority of the practising quantum physicists are still Copenhagenists and Anton Zeilinger is one of them to name a few. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quite safe and actually turning out to be the right one with slight modifications.

If you were not repeating the same mistake a hundred of times, surely I would not be quoting Weinberg once again. Unlike you, he is well aware of the limitations and weakness of the old Copenhagen interpretation and of how modern interpretations have surpassed it.

The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation is related to being the older of all them and that it still work for a large class of quantum systems and also when one does not look into the details. There are situations where the old Copenhagen interpretation fails and has been surpassed by more general and rigorous interpretations, as explained in the modern literature cited hundred of posts ago.

The conclusion is that elements of physical reality or hidden variables that requires non-contextuality (i.e independent of measurement arrangement) is false. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

 

Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker results

Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses as "single photon that exists in three locations at once", "properties of one particle can immediately affect those of another regardless of the distance between them", and so on.

Your selection reflects again your immortal inability to differentiate a reliable scientific source (as those given to you by several posters) from popular misinterpretations. Why do not link again to the pseudo-journal with the hidden agenda? Why do not cite again that pseudo-religious Prize awarded to nonsense?

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Original paper

As the authors correctly note you cannot find a [classical] joint probability distribution allowing "a quantum system to be classically understood". They add: "We provide the first experimental evidence that even for a single three-state system, a qutrit, no such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of pairwise compatible measurements."

I have already stated, about 200 posts ago, that quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. Universe is not classical, but quantum in essence, and quantum mechanics describes quantum reality.

We know very well that classical reality is only an approximation to a more fundamental quantum reality.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is going well along with other interpretations and its very likely that its going to be the right one for the Quantum theoretical framework.

We already know what are the deficiencies of the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is not a secret known only among an elite of researchers, but can be found even in popular magazines as Physics Today (Weinberg's article cited before). You can ignore the facts, but they will not disappear...

You were the guy who told that there is a well accepted scientific consensus in the scientific community on this topic. Isn't it?

Sure, everyone knows that universe is made of elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, and that those particles existed in the universe before the first human was born. Look for "quark epoch" in some cosmology textbook.

You hold the very laughable opinion that those elementary aspects of modern physics are only beliefs by CERN scientists and that universe is made of your five pseudo-religious 'elements'; but such collection of nonsense only reflects your ignorance of such matters.

Selectively quoting a particular passage of my post instead of fully quoting it like you always do to prove your intellectual dishonesty and your biased ignorant position on QM shows that hidden variable theories are highly untenable and that holding on to realism leads to some serious troubles and shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right like it always been.

I did not even mention "hidden variable theories". I only wrote about quantum mechanics...

The Copenhagen Interpretation is well-known to be inconsistent (with Bohr's ideas being plain wrong), as emphasized in the well-known Physics Today article written by Steven Weinberg. Several improvements of the old Copenhagen Interpretation are under active development in modern physics research. Of course, neither nonsensical religious beliefs nor laughable "God hypothesis" play any role in physics research.

It is a fundamental axiom of quantum theory that no elementary phenomena is a phenomena until it is a registered one.

There is no such vague 'axiom' in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory with a precise formulation.

P.S: I know that you are going to ignore this advice once again, but I am at least so persistent as you are: No wonder how many times you misunderstand science or insult others in this forum or elsewhere, your mistakes will not disappear, and your pseudo-religious post-modernism will continue being useless for science.

I see that some of them still have not grasped my arguments and I will try to explain my arguments once again.

 

The same Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner et al team have made recent experiments known as 'Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping'. This is an very important paper for physics.

 

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

 

Please kindly try to understand this paper because it is very essential to understand the current problem in physics and in further understanding my solution to it.

 

In this experiment two pairs of photons 1, 2 and 3, 4 are entangled and the photons 2 and 3 are given to Victor for him to measure and the photons 1 and 4 are given to Alice and Bob respectively.

 

First Alice and Bob makes respective measurements on their photons but they cannot know whether the correlations observed are either of entangled photons or of well separated photons.

 

Now at some later time say 485ns after Alice and Bob's measurement, Victor makes a choice as to which type of measurement to make i.e a separable-state measurement (SSM) or a Bell-state measurement (BSM).

 

"According to Victor's choice of measurement (that is, entangled or separable state) and his results, Alice and Bob can sort their already recorded data into 4 subsets. They can now verify that when Victor projected his photons onto an entangled state, each of their joint subsets behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant photons. When Victor projected his photons onto a separable state, Alice's and Bob's joint subsets behave as if they consisted of separable pairs of photons. In neither case Alice's and Bob's photons have communicated or interacted in the past. This indicates that quantum mechanical predictions are completely indifferent to the temporal order of Victor's choice and measurement with respect to Alice's and Bob's measurements. Whether Alice's and Bob's earlier measurement outcomes indicate entanglement of photons 1 and 4 strictly depends on which measurements Victor performs at a later time on photons 2 and 3."

 

This is highly unacceptable because it seems as if Victor's choice was pre-determined or fixed or that the future is affecting the past. Its highly unacceptable because it directly clashes with General theory of Relativity which says that future cannot affect the past.

 

Therefore if one chooses to believe that the polarisation of a photon exists out there in the physical world prior to measurements or the idea of hidden variables(counterfactual definiteness or realism) then it leads to a serious paradox and its highly unacceptable and hence any realistic interpretation of QM which argue for hidden variables which correspond to elements of reality is in direct conflict with General Relativity.

This misleading argument was answered before. E.g. in #127:

Many resources demystify delayed choice experiments. The textbook cited above devotes an entire chapter to such experiments and explains how people misunderstand such experiments.

Concretely the textbook explains why there is not paradox, violation of causality, or conflict with relativity in such experiments.

As is well-explained in this modern textbook, reality and scientific realism are compatible with this and other experiments.

The evolution of the universe does not depend in any special way of any human choice: in fact, the universe evolved according to the laws of quantum mechanics before the first human was born.