The mother of all quantum challenges

[gill1109]

You understand it wrong.

I suggest you get yourself a copy of "Speakable and unspeakable" by John Bell and read especially chapters 13 and 16. Chapter 16 is about Bertlman's socks. You can find copies on internet. It is a masterpiece.

[gris]

Well, I found this excerpt: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vl ... k/Bell.pdf: yet I'll get me a copy of the book as well.

Anyway based on the excerpt I don't see what I don't understand: Bell assumes say a photon spinning of which you can never be certain what state it is in, then it hits a crystal and splits in two complete photons whereby if the one photon is detected having a horizontal polarization the other one will have a vertical polarization. This is totally random yet always if a + then a - and if a - then a +. after detection then this symmetry is broken. What is there not to understand?

However what you don't understand is that you made a prior assumption that you refuse to inspect properly. Yes you can via hidden variables provide a testable alternate. You BTW don't have a testable alternate. You say it is inherently unsolvable. Well then support the probable falsification of your position. For only then can you provide more and more substance for your in effect probatio diabolica.

[gris]

Further more I just came up with a point that may (or may not) be relevant: the no test when a photon in effect hits the Polaroid of Alice or Bob and the no test that ensues when it isn't in ad random (sufficiently) correct alignment to get through. Does the crystal always produce two photons? Or is it that inaccurate working sometimes no photon at all or just one polarized one comes through? and can the degree of accuracy vary the degree of no tests? Say spraying a light mist that polarizes the photon before hitting the crystal. If the latter is so then that would provide evidence in support of local realism. If it is not so it remains irrelevant.

And in further reference to the "Speakable and unspeakable" excerpt John Bell doesn't abide by what current neuro-psychology teaches us with his sleeper. I explain this more in full in my Youtube films: with DSM 6 in which everyone is mad and genius and stupid except less than 1% of the populace who are normal such as someone in deep coma. In this I have the Big Four: the goal orientated creative chimp, the relationship orientated Bonobo, the authority orientated large ego of Bokito (gorilla) and the humble baboon. The latter two form 80% and are inherently religiously orientated even as a scientist towards science. Because it is sub-consciously Mother of human Nature also via these 80% scientists creates the illusion of being goal orientated. And a large majority of scientists seriously believing they are creatively goal orientated whereas they are below average creative and extremely apt in guessing what their authoritative peers will think is true on any issue. Yet remember everyone is more or less all four of these apes yet always under pressure one is most prominent. (Bokito towards subordinates, baboon to the boss, and bonobo towards the partner and the funny chimp towards the kids. Mind, the chimp is the fighter.)

This is not right or wrong as such, it is so because it best fits survival of the species. All even a chimp is prone to tunnel-vision. That isn't bad as such either. because one shouldn't give up on an idea easily and keep at it for best group performance.

[gill1109]

Irrelevant. Read Bertlman's socks.

[menoma]

This is the original typescript with a cartoon of Reinhold Bertlmann by Bell himself.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf

[gill1109]

Further more I just came up with a point that may (or may not) be relevant: the no test when a photon in effect hits the Polaroid of Alice or Bob and the no test that ensues when it isn't in ad random (sufficiently) correct alignment to get through. Does the crystal always produce two photons? Or is it that inaccurate working sometimes no photon at all or just one polarized one comes through? and can the degree of accuracy vary the degree of no tests? Say spraying a light mist that polarizes the photon before hitting the crystal. If the latter is so then that would provide evidence in support of local realism. If it is not so it remains irrelevant.

You are now talking about the loopholes issue. A sufficiently "sharp" experiment hasn't been done yet. But it is expected within five years.

This fact does not make the mother of all quantum challenges irrelevant. It means that a number of logical possibilities are still open. Most plausible is however that the definitive experiment will get done, and we'll be forced to reject realism, locality, or no-conspiracy.