# Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

## Recommended Posts

Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

I will start with one of the puzzles in quantum mechanics.  In the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments, how does a distant light source ‘know’ whether or not the polarizers are there, so that the source can ‘aim’ the photons to only one slit or to both slits, so as to form a Gaussian pattern or an interference pattern, respectively ?

According to current paradigm, the process of emission of quantum particles such as photons and electrons is completely random and casual. In this post, a new paradigm is proposed as follows.

Just as the point on the ground where a ball will land is predetermined by its initial condition (initial velocity) at the instant the ball is kicked, the point on the detecting screen of a double-slit experiment where a photon (or electron) will be detected is predetermined at the instant of photon emission, by the initial conditions of the photon. This is based on a new insight about the internal structure and dynamics of  elementary particles such as electrons and photons.

Imagine a mechanical version of a double-slit experiment. Suppose that there is a wall in which two holes are made and, behind this wall, another wall at some appropriate distance serving as the ‘detector screen’. The holes are designed so that the ball can exit at different angles ( ‘diffraction’ ).  A boy/a girl repeatedly kicks a ball towards the holes. Suppose the boy/girl can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the ‘detector’ wall. This would be a miracle because it requires extreme fine tuning of the initial condition of the ball ( initial velocity). The boy can then repeatedly kick the ball towards either of the holes and can form an interference pattern. Note that the ball always passes only through one or the other slit, it cannot pass through both slits at the same time. As another example, imagine a super intelligent football player who can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the net, by deflecting it from either of the poles. The football player can form an interference pattern on the net by repeatedly kicking the ball.

The new insight is that the interference patterns have been formed not because the ball ‘interfered’ with itself after passing through the two holes, but just because the boy/girl are super intelligent and can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the wall. This means that it is not even necessary for the wall to have two holes. The boy can form an interference pattern by using only one hole. Not only this. The boy can form a Gaussian pattern, an interference pattern, or any arbitrary pattern, regardless of whether only one or both holes are open,  regardless of the distance between the holes, regardless of the distance of the ‘detecting’ wall from the holes.

My argument is: to say that photons emitted at random from a light source can form an interference pattern is the same as saying that the boy formed an interference pattern on the ball by kicking the ball randomly, i.e. without any fine tuning of the initial conditions. Obviously, forming an interference pattern by the ball requires almost infinite fine tuning of the initial condition of the ball that it takes a miracle to create an interference pattern. The conclusion is that a photon (electron) in the double slit experiment is emitted with almost infinite fine tuning of its initial conditions to precisely aim it to a specific point on the screen, and form an interference pattern or a Gaussian pattern.

The question is: who is fine-tuning the photons (electrons) during emission ? The emitting atoms? Or the emitting atoms conspiring with the detector screen ? These have too infinitely small intelligence to be able to do the task of infinitely fine tuning the initial conditions of a photon. Obviously, the fine tuning requires infinite intelligence. God is fine tuning every emitted photon (electron ).

Imagine a physicist doing a double-slit experiment using light from a galaxy one billion light years away. Now, we know that an interference pattern is formed when both slits are open, and a Gaussian pattern is formed when only one slit is open. How is this possible with light from a galaxy one billion light years away ? The answer: one billion years ago, God foresaw that a physicist would do a double-slit experiment at some specific point and time in the universe, and sent photons for his experiment. Imagine aiming a photon from one billion light years away to a specific point on the detector screen to create an interference pattern!!! God had/has a foreknowledge of whether only one or both slits will be open and aimed the photons accordingly.

Just as the super intelligent boy can direct the ball to any given point on the ‘detector’ wall, so can God. God can form a Gaussian pattern, an interference pattern or any arbitrary pattern regardless of whether only one or both holes are open, regardless of the distance between the holes, regardless of the distance of the detecting screen from the slits. The question is: why then do we always observe an interference pattern when both slits are open, and a Gaussian pattern when only one slit is open. Why then does the interference pattern consistently depend on the distance between the slits and on the distance of the detecting screen from the slits ? The answer is that God just wanted it to be that way and we call these laws of nature (optics). God does not act in arbitrary ways and he always respects the laws he created. But, occasionally, he may ‘violate’ those laws with purpose and we call these miracles. It would be a miracle if an interference pattern was to be formed with only one slit open.

Perhaps physicists might claim to understand the Thomas Young double-slit experiment without the need of God’s interference, such as by probability, wave function and wave function collapse. For now I will not get into a discussion of the puzzles created by these interpretations. But there is one experiment that defies all logic and for which there can be no scientific explanation as we know science: the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiment. How can a distant light source know whether or not there is a polarizer, so that it can aim the photons only to one of the slits or to both slits ?  Does the source of the entangled photons have eyes, and, is it intelligent?  The only way out of this puzzle is that God can see/foresee whether the polarizers are/will be there or not, and aim the photons accordingly. The “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiment, together with other quantum phenomena, is an overwhelming evidence of a supernatural, intelligent being.

What about quantum entanglement ? Suppose that two entangled photons A and B, one with X-polarization and the other with Y-polarization are sent in opposite directions in space. The detectors are placed light years away. Suppose that photon A was detected as X-polarized. Then, instantly, photon B’s polarization will be fixed to be Y. The problem is: how did the photons communicate instantly?

The quantum entanglement puzzle is a problem created by quantum theory itself and there is actually no such puzzle. The polarizations of the photons are determined at the instant of emission and there is no need of ‘communication’ between photons light years apart. The ‘communication’ happens at the instant of emission of the entangled photons.

The grand question is: why do quantum phenomena point to God in such overwhelming way ? I think this is because God had/has a grand plan. He wants humanity to discover Him not only through religion and faith, but also through nature and science.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lidal said:

The grand question is: why do quantum phenomena point to God in such overwhelming way ?

Sadly, this is because you believe in god and are twisting the facts to fit your beliefs.

6 minutes ago, lidal said:

I will start with one of the puzzles in quantum mechanics.  In the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments, how does a distant light source ‘know’ whether or not the polarizers are there, so that the source can ‘aim’ the photons to only one slit or to both slits, so as to form a Gaussian pattern or an interference pattern, respectively ?

That is not a puzzle in quantum mechanics because it is something you have invented, based on your religion.

##### Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Sadly, this is because you believe in god and are twisting the facts to fit your beliefs.

That is not a puzzle in quantum mechanics because it is something you have invented, based on your religion.

Absolutely NOT.  I have been struggling to understand the puzzles of quantum phenomena for years and have even proposed alternative ideas already. But I could never get a satisfactory solution. If I had the intention to make the facts fit my beliefs, I would have proposed this years ago. In fact, I was overwhelmed when this idea occurred to me. I believe in God, but I had never imagined God intervenes in the operation of the universe to this extent, and I assure you that no believer would imagine this. I had never imagined that God will fine tune each and every photon emitted in the universe.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lidal said:

The boy can then repeatedly kick the ball towards either of the holes and can form an interference pattern. Note that the ball always passes only through one or the other slit, it cannot pass through both slits at the same time. As another example, imagine a super intelligent football player who can precisely aim the ball to any given point on the net, by deflecting it from either of the poles. The football player can form an interference pattern on the net by repeatedly kicking the ball.

How do you get the ball to places that are not in the line of sight?

(classical systems will not replicate quantum behavior)

Quote

My argument is: to say that photons emitted at random from a light source can form an interference pattern is the same as saying that the boy formed an interference pattern on the ball by kicking the ball randomly, i.e. without any fine tuning of the initial conditions. Obviously, forming an interference pattern by the ball requires almost infinite fine tuning of the initial condition of the ball that it takes a miracle to create an interference pattern. The conclusion is that a photon (electron) in the double slit experiment is emitted with almost infinite fine tuning of its initial conditions to precisely aim it to a specific point on the screen, and form an interference pattern or a Gaussian pattern.

How do you you test this hypothesis?

2 hours ago, lidal said:

Absolutely NOT.  I have been struggling to understand the puzzles of quantum phenomena for years and have even proposed alternative ideas already. But I could never get a satisfactory solution. If I had the intention to make the facts fit my beliefs, I would have proposed this years ago. In fact, I was overwhelmed when this idea occurred to me. I believe in God, but I had never imagined God intervenes in the operation of the universe to this extent, and I assure you that no believer would imagine this. I had never imagined that God will fine tune each and every photon emitted in the universe.

This is just a version of argument from personal incredulity. "I can't explain it, so it must be God"

##### Share on other sites

In QED photons (or any other quantum particle) take all possible paths, including the paths through the two holes. However, due to destructive interference the effect cancels out nearly everywhere, except on the place where there is constructive interference, i.e. there where we see the interference pattern. No need for Somebody to control where photons can arrive.

QED is one of the best empirically proven theories in physics.

##### Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, lidal said:

Absolutely NOT.  I have been struggling to understand the puzzles of quantum phenomena for years and have even proposed alternative ideas already. But I could never get a satisfactory solution.

48 minutes ago, lidal said:

I believe in God, but I had never imagined God intervenes in the operation of the universe to this extent, and I assure you that no believer would imagine this. I had never imagined that God will fine tune each and every photon emitted in the universe.

I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science.

Eise has given an excellent short summary. If you want more detail, then I recommend Feynman's lectures to a non-technical audience on QED. He explains how this works, extremely well: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 (Also available as a book, if you are old-fashioned like me.)

1 hour ago, lidal said:

What about quantum entanglement ? Suppose that two entangled photons A and B, one with X-polarization and the other with Y-polarization are sent in opposite directions in space. The detectors are placed light years away. Suppose that photon A was detected as X-polarized. Then, instantly, photon B’s polarization will be fixed to be Y. The problem is: how did the photons communicate instantly?

There is no communication.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

The quantum entanglement puzzle is a problem created by quantum theory itself and there is actually no such puzzle. The polarizations of the photons are determined at the instant of emission and there is no need of ‘communication’ between photons light years apart. The ‘communication’ happens at the instant of emission of the entangled photons.

It can be shown that this idea does not match experimental results (see Bell's Theorem)

From the title:

Quote

Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

This is what is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question: you start with the (non-scientific) assumption that a god exists, then add the assumption that it controls every photons, from there you derive the conclusion that quantum theory proves that a god exists that controls every photon.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lidal said:

imagine a super intelligent football player

No can do. God may play dice, but that's too much of a stretch.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This is what is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question: you start with the (non-scientific) assumption that a god exists, then add the assumption that it controls every photons, from there you derive the conclusion that quantum theory proves that a god exists that controls every photon.

Another brilliant logical point. +1

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

This is just a version of argument from personal incredulity. "I can't explain it, so it must be God"

3 hours ago, Eise said:

In QED photons (or any other quantum particle) take all possible paths, including the paths through the two holes. However, due to destructive interference the effect cancels out nearly everywhere, except on the place where there is constructive interference, i.e. there where we see the interference pattern. No need for Somebody to control where photons can arrive.

QED is one of the best empirically proven theories in physics.

No, I did not start from the assumption of God. The quantum puzzles inescapably led me there.  I never started my post from assumption of God.

Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim  to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, lidal said:

Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim  to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

Do you think that the quantum-erase experiment just happened accidentally? Playing around with light in tubes and half-mirrors etc? No, it follows from QM. However, this conclusion is so against all our daily intuitions, that of course they wanted to test if that really happens. So they did the experiment, and lo and behold! another empirical confirmation for QM!

And having a theory from which the facts follow is also called an explanation for these facts.

The problem with QM is not that we do not understand our quantum-mechanical experiments. It is the impossibility to make a picture of what is happening in terms of our daily experiences (where e.g. something can be a particle or a wave, but not both) that makes QM such a strange theory.

And I already told you what QED has to say about 'which way': a quantum particle is taking every possible way, but we observe a phenomenon only there where we have constructive difference. You cannot imagine a photon taking every possible way? Then read the previous paragraph again. Or read Feynman's book about QED, as Strange already suggested.

Edited by Eise

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, lidal said:

Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim  to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

QED explains (and predicted) the results of the single photon equivalent of Young's experiment and all the variations such as quantum erasure.

You are inventing a mystery where none exists. And then using your favourite deity to fill the gap you have created.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lidal said:

No, I did not start from the assumption of God. The quantum puzzles inescapably led me there.  I never started my post from assumption of God.

I didn't say you did. I said you concluded God because you couldn't figure out an answer, and that's not how this works.

Quote

Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim  to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

You seem to want to know the "nuts and bolts" of why it happens, and science doesn't necessarily tell you that. Science models the behavior of nature. It isn't equipped to go beyond that.

But we do have models that work, and one of those is that (basically) everything is a wave, so when you look at the double-slit experiment (and other phenomena) in terms of waves, you can predict what result you will get.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lidal said:

No, I did not start from the assumption of God.

Of course you did. You said it right here:

6 hours ago, lidal said:

I believe in God

You may not have initially been seeking God as the "answer", but you certainly assumed him up front and that obviously came into play.

If you had no concept of God to begin with, you would not have concluded 'God' at the end.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Of course you did. You said it right here:

You may not have initially been seeking God as the "answer", but you certainly assumed him up front and that obviously came into play.

If you had no concept of God to begin with, you would not have concluded 'God' at the end.

It is worth saying that there are plenty of very good scientists that believe in god(s). So it doesn't necessarily blind you to facts and reason. But the OP seems to have taken "the easy route"; rather than understand, make something up.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you get the ball to places that are not in the line of sight?

The same way I golf, when trying to hit it straight down the fairway.

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lidal said:

The grand question is: why do quantum phenomena point to God in such overwhelming way ? I think this is because God had/has a grand plan. He wants humanity to discover Him not only through religion and faith, but also through nature and science.

I offer you an alternative. The confusion, ambiguity, uncertainty and seeming paradoxes promoted by quantum mechanics are clearly the work of a super intelligent, vindictive genius. Solid evidence for the existence of the Devil, not of God.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The same way I golf, when trying to hit it straight down the fairway.

Slicing or hooking a photon or electron is a tad more difficult. (No Magnus effect)

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lidal said:

Regarding QED, quantum theories may claim  to explain some phenomena such as interference patterns, such as the Thomas Young experiment. The "Which Way" and quantum erasure experiment is beyond science as we know it. Or tell me if there is a scientific explanation.

Yes, there is. The explanation follows from quantum theory. Your position is even worse than 'Science has no explanation, therefore God'. Your position is 'I do not understand, therefore God'.

I was very clear about QED: quantum particles take every possible route. This is intuitively not understandable. But the math of QED is very clear, and experimentally tested to the bone. So citing myself:

14 hours ago, Eise said:

The problem with QM is not that we do not understand our quantum-mechanical experiments. It is the impossibility to make a picture of what is happening in terms of our daily experiences (where e.g. something can be a particle or a wave, but not both) that makes QM such a strange theory.

So I could amend my remarks above a little: because you cannot imagine how this works, God exists. There are now several options for you:

1. Delve deeper into quantum theory, so you can see that even the weirdest experiments done, like the quantum eraser, follow from quantum theory. It is a difficult way, of course, but the vistas you get when you start understanding quantum theory are fantastic.
2. If the math is too difficult for you (which is nothing to be ashamed of, it really is not that easy), trust the people here that do understand quantum physics, that there really is nothing unexplainable even in these weird experiments.
3. Or keep following your present thought model: for everything you do not understand, assume 'God did it'.

A nice corrolarium of point 3 of course is that the less you understand, the more room there is for God.

So, what way will you follow?

##### Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lidal said:

But I could never get a satisfactory solution.

‘Satisfactoriness’ is not a property of scientific models; internal self-consistency, empirical testability (in the sense of making testable predictions), and falsifiability are. And QM does rather well in those regards, all of the debates around different interpretations of the formalism notwithstanding.

The standard way of modelling ‘delayed choice’ type experiments may appear unsatisfactory to you only because you tacitly (and perhaps unconsciously) think of the world as classical, which is what we as human experience. More precisely, you tacitly assume locality. But embedding a quantum system such as a delayed-choice eraser setup into spacetime is non-trivial, and in particular not possible so long as one demands Einstein locality to hold.

However, we know now for pretty much certain (ref Alain Aspect et al) that Bell’s inequalities are violated in quantum systems, so Einstein locality must be violated; when one takes this into account, a self-consistent and testable model of this experimental setup is easy enough to write down. However, such an explanation will always seem non-intuitive and ‘unsatisfactory’ to us, because it has no analogue in the classical domain.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

The standard way of modelling ‘delayed choice’ type experiments may appear unsatisfactory to you only because you tacitly (and perhaps unconsciously) think of the world as classical, which is what we as human experience.

That is a very good point. And it further implies that the God of the OP also exists in a purely classical world. Why would you constrain a omniscient and omnipotent God to behave in purely classical ways? Why would you insist that your God had created a world that was capable of being understood in intuitive terms? When, presumably, such a God can create any type of universe they want.

(But getting into those theological questions would be off topic so I'll leave it there, as something for the OP to think about.)

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

And it further implies that the God of the OP also exists in a purely classical world.

Which is another good point. God's interactions would only show in quantum physics? And it reduces his impact to a the little 'wiggle room' quantum physics allows? For the rest God must play according the laws of physics. And even if such interactions would be necessary, how could you identify them arising from the Christian God? Why not demons, the devil, Zeus, Allah, Brahman or the flying spaghetti monster?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/22/2020 at 11:12 AM, lidal said:

How can a distant light source know whether or not there is a polarizer, so that it can aim the photons only to one of the slits or to both slits ?  Does the source of the entangled photons have eyes, and, is it intelligent?

This is actually not very difficult to conceive in principle within the quantum formalism. Quite more difficult is to give a precise and detailed answer.

As Eise has told you, a quantum particle, in some sense, sniffs around all of space time. When you see it in a mathematical formula printed on a paper, you see very clearly it doesn't look like the whim of a god. It does look like a precise mathematical pattern of evolution.

Now, this evolution, in a quantum theory that includes special relativity, is very puzzling, among other things, in that it includes modes of propagation that are superluminal, subluminal, every which way. Those are called "virtual amplitudes", and they appear in the calculations, although they cannot be measured. They are called "off-shell".

The basic reason for this is actually a peculiarity of relativistic kinematics. A real photon satisfies a condition or reality that has the form,

$k^{2}=0$

k is called 4-momentum, and codifies the direction in space-time in which the photon is moving. It's a combination of 4 numbers, the time component and the 3 spacial components:

$k^{2}=\left(k^{t}\right)^{2}-\left(k^{x}\right)^{2}-\left(k^{y}\right)^{2}-\left(k^{z}\right)^{2}$

So it could be negative, positive, or zero in general. Real photons are null. For real photons this quantity must be zero.

But you can always decompose this "real" state as made up by the real components plus many other virtual ones,

$k^{2}=\left(k+p\right)^{2}$

These virtual ones have momentum ("direction") p, which is not physical, and in particular could be superluminal or subluminal:

$p^{2}>0$

$p^{2}<0$

as long as they give you a real photon:

$0=k^{2}+p^{2}+2kp$

I haven't shown you the full-fledged argument in quantum field theory, which goes with amplitudes and so-called Dyson time-ordered formula, but a simplified version of it. It is by no means a foolproof explanation. But here's my question for you: Can you guarantee that the positions where the particle can or cannot land (the not-so-well-known partial reflection paradox is another interesting example) are not set in advance by all the components of the quantum state, including the virtual ones, that make up the Feynman propagation formula?

Edited by joigus

##### Share on other sites

I could not respond in time because of internet blackout. Already too many comments. For now:

To Eise and Swansot:

I agree that the quantum erasure was done to test QM. I also agree that science 'models the behavior of nature'. However, I don't agree that 'science doesn't go go beyond modelling nature'. A correct model will lead to a deeper, and deeper insight, and intuitive understanding. I think that the lack of intuitive underdtsnding in modern physics (QM and relativity) is because the models themselves are not correct.

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, lidal said:

I could not respond in time because of internet blackout. Already too many comments. For now:

To Eise and Swansot:

I agree that the quantum erasure was done to test QM. I also agree that science 'models the behavior of nature'. However, I don't agree that 'science doesn't go go beyond modelling nature'. A correct model will lead to a deeper, and deeper insight, and intuitive understanding.

Can lead, but not must lead. You can only test a model by doing an experiment, so the limit to deeper understanding is what you can test.

25 minutes ago, lidal said:

I think that the lack of intuitive underdtsnding in modern physics (QM and relativity) is because the models themselves are not correct.

Not correct in what way? Do they fail to describe how nature behaves?

##### Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lidal said:

I think that the lack of intuitive underdtsnding in modern physics (QM and relativity) is because the models themselves are not correct.

But everybody has different kinds of intuitions! How can this be a criterion? On the other side, people who work constantly in the area of quantum mechanics, may very well develop quantum intuitions. This is always the case: when your are journeying through well known terrain, you can do this intuitively.

And why would these models not be correct? Based on their understanding of QM, physicists derived that it would be possible to design a quantum eraser. They did the experiment, and it worked as QM predicted. So how can you conclude from the quantum eraser experiment that QM is not correct, when it correctly predicts what happens?

One of my favourites (just about one minute):

##### Share on other sites

This theory explains those phenomena that quantum mechanics (QM) claims to explain PLUS those phenomena that QM ( and science as we know it) cannot explain. According to QM, a photon is not said with certainty to be at a given point P until it is detected at that point. The wave function of the photon collapses to that point at the instant of detection. The new theory says that the photon was sent to be at point P at some specific time instant τ because God had a foreknowledge that an observer ( for example, an absorbing atom that is in motion) would be at point P at time instant τ.From a foreknowledge of the future positions of the atom, God made the source emit the photon in the right direction, and at the right instant, so that the photon and the atom will meet at point P.

But why point P ? For example, the photon could be emitted so that it would be absorbed at another point Q. God just chose the point of photon absorption to be point P.Imagine an absorbing atom moving relative to a light source. According to current paradigm, the points where the moving atom absorbs photons are random. According to the new theory, those points are just God’s choices. God is behind all the apparent randomness in physics.

Stated in another way, by choosing at will to look or not to look at a star that is one million light years away, at a specific time of a specific midnight, from a specific point of space, the observer retroactively decides on whether or not a photon was to be emitted one million years ago from that star, and decide on the fine tuning of each photon. You are 100% responsible for a photon coming all the way from a galaxy one billion light years away.

What is my evidence for this theory ?  Answer: this is the only theory that can explain the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments. Science, as we know it, cannot explain this experiment.

Regarding quantum entanglement, imagine a source of entangled photons A and B, one X-polarized and the other Y-polarized. The photons are emitted in opposite directions in space and two detectors are placed each of them one light year away from the source. The new theory says that the photons are fine- tuned at the instant of light emission. The fine tuning is required to aim the photons at the detectors. One can imagine that the fine tuning required is almost ‘infinite’.

There is no puzzle about the polarization of each photon which is fixed at the instant of emission. The quantum entanglement puzzle just disappears.

One may ask : “ What if the photons ‘missed’ the detectors” ? We can guess that this is only a thought experiment   and in reality it is extremely difficult to aim the photons at detectors that are one light years away. Perhaps, say, only one in one trillion photons hit the detector. What about the other photons?  One might ask, if God fine- tuned every photon, why did all those photons ‘miss’ their target ? The explanation is that if only one photon hit the detector, it was because God aimed only that photon to hit the detector. The other photons were aimed at other targets in the universe. The fact that most photons did not hit the detector is just a law of physics.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

But everybody has different kinds of intuitions! How can this be a criterion? On the other side, people who work constantly in the area of quantum mechanics, may very well develop quantum intuitions. This is always the case: when your are journeying through well known terrain, you can do this intuitively.

And why would these models not be correct? Based on their understanding of QM, physicists derived that it would be possible to design a quantum eraser. They did the experiment, and it worked as QM predicted. So how can you conclude from the quantum eraser experiment that QM is not correct, when it correctly predicts what happens?

One of my favourites (just about one minute):

Initially your model might not be understood intuitively. But as long as it agrees with experiments and it is internally consistent, it should be accepted. But eventually, over time your model should lead to deeper insights. I believe that a correct model cannot remain counter-intuitive indefinitely, like QM and relativity. I think that internal consistency, agreement with experiment and access to intuitive thinking are all features of a correct theory of nature.

To Eise:

I don't even think that QM (and relativity ), as models,  have full internal consistency and full agreement with experiments. I know the failures of relativity. But it is usually argued that relativity has internal consistency. I mention relativity just to explain my idea, not to change the topic.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×