Esail wrote:local wrote:Are you saying that the singlet photon reaching B is undefined (per QM) until a measurement angle a is set at A (or until a measurement at angle a occurs), at which point it is projected to a + pi/2? Sounds like nonlocal projection (collapse) to me.

What do you mean by indistinguishability of the photons and how does that preclude a simulation? QM itself can be simulated so why should your model be any different?

It's up to you to give us more than hand waving.

Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)

Esail wrote:Referring to the initial state we chose the set up PA,PB = alpha, pi/2 with an initial photon polarization phi1, phi2 = 0°, pi/2.

On side A we have delta1 = alpha-0° =alpha and for this A(alpha,lambda) = 1 for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha) according to model assumption MA1. Here delta1 is the difference between the polarizer setting and the photon polarization.

Assuming now a polarizer setting PA,PB= 0°, alpha+pi/2 without changing the context we would get for the same photon pair delta2 = alpha+ pi/2 - pi/2 = alpha and B(alpha,lambda) = 1 as well for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha).

Here we used model assumptions MA1 & MA2. Hence we see that if photon 1 is selected by polarizer PA at alpha its peer photon 2 is selected as well and hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2 with certainty.

Do you agree?

This is local as we get the same values for A and B just because of the same arguments and not because of communication between them.

Do you agree?

Was this hand waving?

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

Indistinguishability means that photons cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selected photons have the same polarization. This is what the model says and how nature works.

This is what conventional QM says, on the surface. It's just a verbal description of the usual calculations with wave functions, projections, Hilbert spaces.

It's not a description of *how nature works*, it's a description of *what we see nature do, if we look at nature through a certain pair of glasses*.

Or: @esail says that in nature two photons at two distant locations are indistinguishable hence what happens to one happens to both. He says this cannot be simulated in a computer because the mere fact of putting information about two photons into a computer makes them distinguishable.

Now it is true that the indistinguishability of certain aspects of things in quantum theory is responsible for weird quantum behaviour. In the sense - in the sense that it some comforting coherence to what otherwise seems crazy. But two photons at two distant locations at two points in space-time are distinguishable by their locations. @esail is not *explaining* quantum weirdness. He's just telling us where it is kind of unavoidable in the weird math framework which he seems to think that educated person now accepts as intuitive, natural, obvious. But people didn't think that 120 years ago. Of course, people used to think that Maxwell's theory was weird, and before that, Newton's. Maybe in 100 years no one will think quantum theory is weird.

I think they will just have been sufficiently brainwashed and motivated by fun technological gadgets or new devastating weapons not to see it's weird.

Long long ago, people thought that the number zero was weird, and negative numbers were weird. Complex numbers were imaginary. Irrational numbers were ... irrational.

Feynman said: shut up and calculate. And that one does not come to understand new mathematical structures, one just gets to become familiar with them.

I think that @esail has got so used to the quantum formalism that he now thinks it is utterly intuitive. Nice for him. But the important question is: has his paper contributed anything new? I don't see that! In my opinion he has mystified, not clarified. I *do* think that indistinguishability of some features of some physical systems, sufficiently de-coupled from anything else, is the big thing making quantum physics so different from anything else. It makes it so different that it is literally "inconceivable". Maybe even "spooky". But that doesn't stop you doing the calculations. And getting "intuition" with them. Shut up and calculate...