Interpretation of a state in quantum entanglement

[zonde]

That's a what a property is. What else would be scientific?

Look, you take polarizer and test linearly polarized beam of light. Detector does not tell you polarization of beam. It tells you intensity of light (or number of "clicks" per time period if you use single photon detectors) with particular orientation of polarizer. This intensity is what you get as a result, not polarization (a property).

This is a crucial aspect of nonrealism that a lot of people get wrong.

I will not participate in discussion about nonrealism.

I can say precisely the same thing about the aether for light propagation. Indeed, I would, it is precisely the same attitude, and should be rejected for precisely the same reason: it never shows up when looked for.

Original "luminiferous aether" was falsified by experiment. This is the "eather" that was rejected exactly the way science works.
Then there was updated Lorentz version. It was never rejected because it made the same predictions as SR. It just dropped out of fashion probably because people got stuck on unanswerable question about preferred reference frame. People who quit asking that question just found other testable predictions and moved forward.
So if you claim that your approach should be accepted for the same reason just come up with interesting predictions using your approach that can be tested experimentally.

 

[Boing3000]

Computing what? What are you talking about?

I am talking at computing the curvature along the path of beams to align filter/mirror. I am quite sure that LIGO has done such homework.

You keep confusing the invariant proper time with the ability to mark simultaneous moments across two different proper time streams.

I don't confuse them at all. I can use any unambiguous mark of time to define simultaneity in experiment as well as any unambiguous mark of space to define alignment in experiment. Both are identity of non-local value (and both value are no event defined by QM)
Can you please give me a reference which explain why I cannot ?

But unfortunately it's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the stress put on simultaneity in common descriptions of entanglement breaking.

And that identity of timely value can be asserted by experiment as "easy" as can be asserted identity of alignment.
By doing so you can (in)validated by experiments whole categories of explanation. Bell simultaneous non-locality for example.

I don't think you have understood, simultaneity is quite different from proper time.I cannot contradict something I never said.

Your notion of simultaneity is as vague as the one used in QM. I don't think you understand that I suggest a way to get out of vague and undefined notion.
This way is totally identically to aligning filter. I do believe that if computing the alignment of detector leads us to setup our detector to face a totally different azimuth (with respect to the CMB for example). This is absolute direction with respect to the quantity tested. You have no ground to reject using the same physics with respect to identical time stamp (unambiguous simultaneity for the quantity tested).

 

[Ken G]

I can use any unambiguous mark of time to define simultaneity in experiment as well as any unambiguous mark of space to define alignment in experiment.

No.

Can you please give me a reference which explain why I cannot ?

Any special relativity textbook.

 

[Ken G]

I will not participate in discussion about nonrealism.

I didn't think you would, that's why I gave the realist possibility that does not involve arbitrary spacetime foliations: properties of particles are only acquired during measurements on the particle in question, even when entanglement exists.

Original "luminiferous aether" was falsified by experiment.

No, as soon as the Lorentz transformation was discovered (by experiment), the luminous aether became unfalsifiable. This is a fact, the Lorentz transformation completely covers the tracks of any preferred aether frame, so we cannot say such a frame is falsified, instead it is rendered unknowable in exactly the same way as the preferred foliation you spoke of for entanglement. The status is identically the same in both cases, but the aether is widely rejected because is it both unknowable and unnecessary-- just like your preferred foliation is.

Then there was updated Lorentz version.

The updated Lorentz version was simply the use of the Lorentz transformation to cover the tracks of the aether frame, as I said. The sole testable element is the Lorentz transformation, all else is interpretation, including the aether. Nevertheless, it is always inevitable that unknowable and unnecessary elements of any interpretation will eventually be dropped under the weight of its own uselessness.

It just dropped out of fashion probably because people got stuck on unanswerable question about preferred reference frame.

Exactly what I'm saying.

People who quit asking that question just found other testable predictions and moved forward.

Oh they did quite a bit more than quit asking the question! They concluded the aether frame was a red herring. This attitude is quite commonly found in textbooks.

So if you claim that your approach should be accepted for the same reason just come up with interesting predictions using your approach that can be tested experimentally.

As I said, the aether frame cannot be tested experimentally either, yet see what the textbooks have to say about it. Or consider the Wiki on the luminiferous aether:
"With the development of the special relativity, the need to account for a single universal frame of reference had disappeared – and acceptance of the 19th century theory of a luminiferous aether disappeared with it."
Nevertheless, Lorentz never abandoned the aether concept because what
"the theory of relativity has to say ... can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time."
Yet special relativity is always devoid of an aether, all the same, and for no other reasons than what we are currently discussing about quantum entanglement. On this basis, I conclude there are only three internally consistent languages to talk about the acquisition of properties when entanglement breaks:
1) realists who believe in an aether can hold that there is some kind of instantaneous or simultaneous acquisition of properties by both particles, but their basis is no stronger than their belief in an aether,
2) realists who reject the aether must hold that the properties are acquired, for each particle, only at the time of measurement for that particle, or
3) nonrealists can hold that properties are elements of a scientific analysis and are acquired exactly when they are used in said analysis, i.e., the issue doesn't really even appear.