by **Q-reeus** » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:46 am

local wrote:First, it cannot be both 0 or 180 degrees for anticorrelation. Only 0 degrees gives you that according to QM. Second, your assertion of inconsistency has already been refuted by the local model both minkwe and I presented to you.

A simple slip-up you keenly noticed and pounced on. So I should have wrote "...anti-correlation (correlation), for detector relative orientations of 0 (180 degrees)...

In keeping with my earlier posts btw.

It seems to me that now that you have abandoned the silly youtube video as well as your incorrect interpretation of QM, you are now just left standing there pushing all the standard Bell-based arguments for nonlocality. Is there anything new you have to add to that debate? If not, do you concede that it is not in fact "curtains for locality in QM"?

Even more so than earlier, given total indeterminancy of incident particle spin orientations, and logically purely local detector-particle angular momentum exchanges, how can overall singlet conservation of angular momentum have any bearing on measurement outcomes? Inherently random, local interactions should rule the roost. The joint measurements should be totally uncorrelated, if there is no 'mysterious' non-local entanglement connection - which standard QM predicts.

Well we all agree there is perfect joint measurement anti-correlations (correlations) for detector angles as previously prescribed. A physically plausible explanation, not purely mathematical concoction, is called for imo. How do you reconcile these factors in favor of QM locality?

In case you were not aware of it, Luders' rule is a postulate, and postulating it for detection stations arbitrarily separated in space in effect postulates nonlocality (while also violating Lorentz invariance). If basic von Neumann projection is applied to EPRB instead of Luders' rule, as it should be, quantum correlations are not predicted. And that is why no experiment without disqualifying problems has ever demonstrated quantum correlation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808I neither credit nor discredit the view that 3-sphere topology justifies application of Luders' rule, thereby allowing nature to exhibit quantum correlations. It is a separate debate and is not settled, so it cannot be appealed to in support of the idea of "curtains for locality".

Not familiar with Luder's rule. I'll stick with above simple argument - local detector-particle random interactions should give purely local random results thus no joint correlations IF QM is truly local in nature.

[quote="local"]First, it cannot be both 0 or 180 degrees for anticorrelation. Only 0 degrees gives you that according to QM. Second, your assertion of inconsistency has already been refuted by the local model both minkwe and I presented to you.[/quote]

A simple slip-up you keenly noticed and pounced on. So I should have wrote "...anti-correlation (correlation), for detector relative orientations of 0 (180 degrees)...

In keeping with my earlier posts btw.

[quote]It seems to me that now that you have abandoned the silly youtube video as well as your incorrect interpretation of QM, you are now just left standing there pushing all the standard Bell-based arguments for nonlocality. Is there anything new you have to add to that debate? If not, do you concede that it is not in fact "curtains for locality in QM"?[/quote]

Even more so than earlier, given total indeterminancy of incident particle spin orientations, and logically purely local detector-particle angular momentum exchanges, how can overall singlet conservation of angular momentum have any bearing on measurement outcomes? Inherently random, local interactions should rule the roost. The joint measurements should be totally uncorrelated, if there is no 'mysterious' non-local entanglement connection - which standard QM predicts.

Well we all agree there is perfect joint measurement anti-correlations (correlations) for detector angles as previously prescribed. A physically plausible explanation, not purely mathematical concoction, is called for imo. How do you reconcile these factors in favor of QM locality?

[quote]In case you were not aware of it, Luders' rule is a postulate, and postulating it for detection stations arbitrarily separated in space in effect postulates nonlocality (while also violating Lorentz invariance). If basic von Neumann projection is applied to EPRB instead of Luders' rule, as it should be, quantum correlations are not predicted. And that is why no experiment without disqualifying problems has ever demonstrated quantum correlation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808

I neither credit nor discredit the view that 3-sphere topology justifies application of Luders' rule, thereby allowing nature to exhibit quantum correlations. It is a separate debate and is not settled, so it cannot be appealed to in support of the idea of "curtains for locality".[/quote]

Not familiar with Luder's rule. I'll stick with above simple argument - local detector-particle random interactions should give purely local random results thus no joint correlations IF QM is truly local in nature.