SciPhysicsForums.com

A new paper that appeared recently on arXiv.org,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7023
"A Macroscopic Classical System with Entanglement"

I don't necessarily agree with how they worded everything but it is still a macroscopic classical system experiment that has the potential of violation.

FrediFizzx wrote:A new paper that appeared recently on arXiv.org,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7023
"A Macroscopic Classical System with Entanglement"

I don't necessarily agree with how they worded everything but it is still a macroscopic classical system experiment that has the potential of violation.

Nice!

This is quite similar to what you have been suggesting for a long time. I also agree with you that they need not have worded things the way they have.

Expect more bobbing and weaving from the Bell-believers, however. The issue has never been about science. It has always been about their dogmatic convictions.

He says in the conclusion, "The existence of this classical analog does not fundamentally change any of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, but it should lead us to re-examine the definitions of terms such as "entanglement" and what are "truly" quantum effects." Apparently Snoke does not know of your model that does explain the illusion of entanglement. Or... perhaps he is being careful so the Bell mafia doesn't come after him.

The point of this paper is something very well known: the quantum state ( |01> - |10> ) / sqrt 2 can turn up in all kinds of contexts in quantum mechanics. One can even often measure the Bell observables and observe the expected violation of CHSH, i.e., confirm QM's predictions. But if the two components of the bipartite system we are looking at do not reside in separate regions of space-time and if it is not possible to measure each one in a small time interval such that the two space-time measurement regions are space-like separated, whatever we get to see has not got anything to do with issues of locality or non-locality.

Such a system can of course easily be macroscopic and one can easily come up with classical explanations for what is going on.

Seems to me that Snoke should read Bell.

gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Snoke should read Bell.

Seems to me that someone with competence in mathematics and physics should read my work, without falling for the tabloid propaganda against it by non-physicists.

FrediFizzx wrote:Or... perhaps he is being careful so the Bell mafia doesn't come after him.

If he hadn't been careful, then his paper would not have been published even on arXiv. The Bell mafia is capable of stooping to any level. We have already seen lying and cheating, not to mention personal attacks, fabricating and inserting "errors" in other people's work, and tabloid style negative propaganda against any challenger.

Anyways, this experiment looks to be classical local realistic to me. So if it shows strong correlations, then Bell is dead for sure. Seems like it could be a worthy experiment for someone to try. No simulation is needed since Snoke has shown the equivalence mathematically. Of course if Joy's mechanical experiment shows strong correlations, then Bell is super-dead and we have a whole new ball game in physics.

FrediFizzx wrote:Anyways, this experiment looks to be classical local realistic to me. So if it shows strong correlations, then Bell is dead for sure. Seems like it could be a worthy experiment for someone to try. No simulation is needed since Snoke has shown the equivalence mathematically. Of course if Joy's mechanical experiment shows strong correlations, then Bell is super-dead and we have a whole new ball game in physics.

But there is no "non-locality" here. There's nothing weird about strong correlations as such. Weird that QM does not allow even stronger.

Here is another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3338
"Violation of Bell's Inequalities with Classical Shimony-Wolf States: Theory and Experiment"

Bam! Experiment done; Bell's theorem is dead junk.

Some Bellistas appear to have no issue with macroscopic entanglement, depending on how one defines macroscopic. (Entities no smaller than n molecules, perhaps.) Vlatko Vedral almost seems to discern entanglement everywhere. Seth Lloyd believes it to be critical to ordinary chemical bonding. Its arguable role in photosynthesis is of increasing interest. There is nothing new in this. Seeing how far one can tease quantum behavior out into the macroworld is a game that has been around for a while. Zeilinger et alii's double-slit experiment with buckyballs is fifteen years old now.

And another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

That experiment was inspired by this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981
"Nonlocal continuous variable correlations and violation of Bell's inequality for light beams with topological singularities"

It is unfortunate that they use the term "nonlocal" as this looks to be all local realistic to me. But one must keep the Bell mafia at bay somehow.

FrediFizzx wrote:And another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

That experiment was inspired by this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981
"Nonlocal continuous variable correlations and violation of Bell's inequality for light beams with topological singularities"

It is unfortunate that they use the term "nonlocal" as this looks to be all local realistic to me. But one must keep the Bell mafia at bay somehow.

None of these people are actually doing a loophole free Bell-CHSH experiment, so ... so what? As should be very well known, the good experiment still hasn't been done yet. Most experts expect it will finally get done in the coming year, some experts are dubious as to whether it will ever get done.

gill1109 wrote:None of these people are actually doing a loophole free Bell-CHSH experiment, so ... so what? As should be very well known, the good experiment still hasn't been done yet. Most experts expect it will finally get done in the coming year, some experts are dubious as to whether it will ever get done.

So these experiments are not loophole free. So... so what? That is not the point here. You seem to be suffering from some false impression that a loophole free test will rule out LHV theories once and for all. Not so since Bell's theorem is dead junk anyways as far as physics is concerned.

FrediFizzx wrote:

gill1109 wrote:None of these people are actually doing a loophole free Bell-CHSH experiment, so ... so what? As should be very well known, the good experiment still hasn't been done yet. Most experts expect it will finally get done in the coming year, some experts are dubious as to whether it will ever get done.

So these experiments are not loophole free. So... so what? That is not the point here. You seem to be suffering from some false impression that a loophole free test will rule out LHV theories once and for all. Not so since Bell's theorem is dead junk anyways as far as physics is concerned.

You mean, you disagree with the logic of Bell's theorem. Well, that's a different issue.

gill1109 wrote:You mean, you disagree with the logic of Bell's theorem. Well, that's a different issue.

??? What the heck do you think has been going on here in these discussions for the last few months? Are you drunk or high on something?

FrediFizzx wrote:And another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

That experiment was inspired by this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981
"Nonlocal continuous variable correlations and violation of Bell's inequality for light beams with topological singularities"

It is unfortunate that they use the term "nonlocal" as this looks to be all local realistic to me. But one must keep the Bell mafia at bay somehow.

The second paper was actually published in Phys. Rev. A. But they do not talk of "nonlocal influences", instead they talk of "nonlocal correlations". In their conclusion: "[..] the first study of nonlocal correlations in classical optical beams [..]".

Correlations can be nonlocal without anything weird going on, as Jaynes argued (and Bell admitted that in his socks paper).
And I agree with you that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done??

harry wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:And another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

That experiment was inspired by this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981
"Nonlocal continuous variable correlations and violation of Bell's inequality for light beams with topological singularities"

It is unfortunate that they use the term "nonlocal" as this looks to be all local realistic to me. But one must keep the Bell mafia at bay somehow.

The second paper was actually published in Phys. Rev. A. But they do not talk of "nonlocal influences", instead they talk of "nonlocal correlations". In their conclusion: "[..] the first study of nonlocal correlations in classical optical beams [..]".

Correlations can be nonlocal without anything weird going on, as Jaynes argued (and Bell admitted that in his socks paper).
And I agree with you that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done??

Due to the false interpretation of Bell's theorem, these experimenters are forced to use such terms as "non-local" and "entanglement" when strong correlations are present otherwise their papers would not get published. More likely the case is that they are just brainwashed (through no fault of their own) to use those terms automatically even though they aren't true.

FrediFizzx wrote:

harry wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:And another one,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

That experiment was inspired by this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981
"Nonlocal continuous variable correlations and violation of Bell's inequality for light beams with topological singularities"

It is unfortunate that they use the term "nonlocal" as this looks to be all local realistic to me. But one must keep the Bell mafia at bay somehow.

The second paper was actually published in Phys. Rev. A. But they do not talk of "nonlocal influences", instead they talk of "nonlocal correlations". In their conclusion: "[..] the first study of nonlocal correlations in classical optical beams [..]".

Correlations can be nonlocal without anything weird going on, as Jaynes argued (and Bell admitted that in his socks paper).
And I agree with you that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done??

Due to the false interpretation of Bell's theorem, these experimenters are forced to use such terms as "non-local" and "entanglement" when strong correlations are present otherwise their papers would not get published. More likely the case is that they are just brainwashed (through no fault of their own) to use those terms automatically even though they aren't true.

I have no issue with their use of "non-local correlations" and "entanglement". I do have an issue with their adoption of a popular misuse of the term "local realistic"; but as you say, it may have been necessary to get it published. Note also the rather careful, even obscure language in their summary.

Once more: if this is what it seems to be, what prevents someone reading this from getting Gill's € 5000.- award?
Note: not me, at least not now, as I'm very busy and not familiar with much of what the authors discuss. But as long as nobody manages to actually translate their math in a working local realistic computer program, I'm not convinced either way - and no doubt it's the same for most people!

harry wrote:I have no issue with their use of "non-local correlations" and "entanglement". I do have an issue with their adoption of a popular misuse of the term "local realistic"; but as you say, it may have been necessary to get it published. Note also the rather careful, even obscure language in their summary.

Once more: if this is what it seems to be, what prevents someone reading this from getting Gill's € 5000.- award?

Well, I certainly have issues with the use of the term "non-local correlations". Einstein thought it to be absurd and I am sticking with him especially now that there does exist a classical local realistic model that explains strong correlations.

Gill's award? Don't make me laugh. It is totally bogus and he freely admits that it is.

FrediFizzx wrote:

harry wrote:

harry wrote: [..] Correlations can be nonlocal without anything weird going on, as Jaynes argued (and Bell admitted that in his socks paper).
[..]
- is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done??

I have no issue with their use of "non-local correlations" and "entanglement". I do have an issue with their adoption of a popular misuse of the term "local realistic"; but as you say, it may have been necessary to get it published. Note also the rather careful, even obscure language in their summary.

Once more: if this is what it seems to be, what prevents someone reading this from getting Gill's € 5000.- award?

Well, I certainly have issues with the use of the term "non-local correlations". Einstein thought it to be absurd and I am sticking with him especially now that there does exist a classical local realistic model that explains strong correlations.

Gill's award? Don't make me laugh. It is totally bogus and he freely admits that it is.

On this one I agree with Jaynes and Bell.

And Gill's award is not bogus, nor is that the issue here. Since Bell's theorem became widely known, people have been arguing about it without anything convincing coming out of it. It would be a breakthrough if someone could provide a simulation program that disproves Bell's theorem according to an independent jury such as the one Gill and Christian already provided; and that should be not too difficult (although still hard work) if these papers say what we think that they are saying. Inversely, if no such simulation program can be produced based on these papers, then we have to conclude that we misunderstood what they are saying.