Entanglement in QM - Understanding Instant Correlation & Randomness

[rubi]

As I said, you are rejecting the work of some of the top physicists in the field. And it is a bit lame to reference an entire textbook in support of your position.

What is really lame is that you pretend I would reject the work of any physicist. I really have said multiple times that I am not rejecting anything written in these papers. What I am rejecting is your personal interpretation of what these papers imply. If you want to discuss this, then please stop pretending that I would reject the papers. I am in 100% agreement with these papers.

It seems like I can't get my point across and you never address the actual argument. So let me ask you a few simple yes/no questions:
1. Do you agree that the statistics in this experiment is collected from overlapping spacetime regions?
2. Do you agree that my example in post #23 features non-local and non-temporal correlations of light pulses that have never coexisted?
3. Do you believe that my example in post #23 shows that classical Maxwell electrodynamics is non-local?

 

[DrChinese]

However, it's only the statistics that matches this state. The system itself is never in this state.

This conclusion is ridiculous on the face of it, and is actually a denial (although it may not be obvious) of Bell's Theorem. The issue here is your use of the word "never". The system was in the entangled state, but "never" at a single point in time. So what?

My entire point triggering this discussion is that an entangled system can consist of particles that have never co-existed. I have produced citation after citation on this point, and can provide more. If they "never" co-existed, you define them to not be entangled. So you are assuming that which you seek to prove. That's wrong and obviously outdated, as I mention in my post #33 above.

 

[PeterDonis]

After post-selection, we will find statistics that matches the statistics of a hypothetical state $\psi_1\otimes\psi_4+\psi_4\otimes\psi_1$ for coexisting photons 1 and 4. However, it's only the statistics that matches this state. The system itself is never in this state.

You appear to be using a non-relativistic framework, where we can meaningfully speak of the "state" of a spatially extended system at a particular "time". I'm not sure the papers in question are actually using such a framework, given that the authors appear to be adopting the very interpretation you are rejecting.

What I am rejecting is your personal interpretation of what these papers imply.

As I read the papers, it also appears to be the interpretation of the authors. That in itself doesn't necessarily make it correct, but it does mean it isn't just DrChinese who is adopting this interpretation.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

[Edit: The thread will remain closed.]