Local mechanism for nonlocal anticorrelations inside spin theory

[DrChinese]

Then my initial suspicion was correct. You do not accept such accounts of even traditional EPR experiments, never mind entanglement swapping experiments.

In the traditional EPR experiment, if we interpret all relevant distributions as about objective properties of the measured system, imperfectly known, then the Bell-inequality-violating correlations reproduced by joint measurements on the 2-particle system imply* one measurement immediately affects the site of the other, distant measurement .

…

No, I accept traditional Bell tests and explanations up to the point that I have learned something new. But your description is hardly a traditional explanation by any means. The usual explanation for Bell correlations is that parametric down conversion creates a system of two photons, a Fock state. It is called a biphoton. The biphoton has spatial extent. It is not agreed upon whether there is physical collapse or not. That tends to very from interpretation to interpretation

What we hopefully agree on is that such a biphoton, when measured by Alice and Bob, at the same angle setting, will produce perfect correlations. And hopefully, we agree that those outcomes are not pre-determined in a classical manner. After all, that would violate Bell.

 

[DrChinese]

I am inferring a stronger claim from @DrChinese. A claim that is not interpretation dependent: Any interpretation that can account for entanglement swapping experiments must involve actions having immediate effects in spatially distant regions.

@DrChinese If you are simply making an interpretation-dependent claim about local action, then there isn't disagreement between us. I agree that some interpretations suppose nonlocal action, while others do not.

I am citing experimental papers that demonstrate extremely specific behavior. That behavior must be explainable by any interpretation to remain compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

It should be obvious that many of the existing interpretations fail in describing these experimental results. I can’t force anybody to discard their interpretation. But I can ask how various interpretations can explain those results. The idea that there is some magical concept buried in the idea of a “information update” should be rejected. With a BSM, the information is the same, regardless of whether there is indistinguishability or not. But the results are not the same, and so experiment rules that out. The experimenter who runs the BSM chooses freely whether to create entangled state statistics, or separable state statistics. And that experimenter is situated far away from Alice and Bob and the perfect correlations they record. Note that no specific mechanism is presented as to how that occurs. It just does.

I would call that non-local action at a distance, completely consistent with orthodox quantum mechanics as we understand it today. So by the same general reasoning that we exclude local realistic theories due to Bell: I would say we should exclude all local theories and interpretations based on experiments such as those I’ve cited.

 

[PeterDonis]

It should be obvious that many of the existing interpretations fail in describing these experimental results.

No, it's not obvious. We have had discussions along these lines before. All interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results, because they all use the same (or equivalent) math--the math of standard QM. Unqualified claims that an interpretation cannot account for certain experimental results are simply not valid, and are out of bounds in this subforum.

You evidently do not accept the claims of many existing interpretations to account for the experimental results you cite, but that is just your opinion. You cannot state it as a fact, certainly not an "obvious" fact.

 

[PeterDonis]

I can ask how various interpretations can explain those results.

Such questions would need to be answered by giving references that use those interpretations and give explanations based on them. That includes your claims about how your preferred interpretation accounts for the results, btw. At this point, without any further references, this thread can't really go any further, because everyone has stated their positions and, since all such positions regarding interpretations are a matter of opinion (per the guidelines for this subforum), disagreements about such things are not resolvable.

 

[PeterDonis]

Given the situation described in my post #74 just now, I am closing this thread. If anyone has a reference they would like to post that describes how their preferred interpretation deals with the experimental results under discussion, you can PM me and I'll take a look, and reopen the thread if warranted.