Possibilities of Time-Independent Entangled Photons

[PeterDonis]

the authors *are* authorities

I disagree. There are no authorities in science. Everything in science stands or falls by whether it matches experimental results. It doesn't matter who says it or what credentials they have.

And when experiments can't decide the question, as in this case (and in any case involving QM interpretations--here it's basically realist vs. non-realist), there is no way to resolve the question. Certainly you can't resolve it by saying that a Nobel prize winner says X, therefore X is right. The best we can do is to express the different viewpoints as best we can. That has certainly been done in this thread, but it's all that can be done.

the 1927 Schrödinger equation (i.e. prior to the discovery of entanglement)

Um, what?

First, the Schrodinger equation is still the basis of NRQM today.

Second, while our understanding of entanglement has improved since the 1920s, the mathematical basis for analyzing it in NRQM is still the Schrodinger equation, which already contains all the necessary ingredients--all you need is an appropriate interaction Hamiltonian.

So I do not think your dismissive attitude here is at all justified.

you question whether my perspective matches scientific consensus

Science doesn't work on "consensus" any more than it works on authoritative pronouncements.

That said, the use of the Schrodinger equation in NRQM is "scientific consensus", as embodied in more textbooks and peer-reviewed papers than we have time to count or reference here.

Also, your "perspective" does not necessarily match the actual claims that are intended by the authors of the papers you cite. Every quote you have given is ambiguous, for reasons that have already been given multiple times in this thread. You are of course entitled to your opinion about what you think the authors mean, but you can't just help yourself to the claim that your opinion is obviously correct and no other interpretation of what they mean is possible.

Are you being objective?

Since we are discussing QM interpretations, there is no "objective" way to resolve our disagreement. So expecting objectivity from anyone in this discussion, including you, is expecting too much. That is an unavoidable aspect of any discussion in this subforum, and is one of the main reasons this subforum was split off from the main QM forum.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would ask you to re-consider the full value of the citations I have provided.

I've already given your citations plenty of consideration. My opinion has been stated.

If after that, you think the thread has no ongoing utility, then the decision to close is yours to make without objection from me.

I'm going to close the thread for moderation at this point so other mentors can take a look.

 

[jedishrfu]

Upon review, it seems this thread has run its course and so now is a good time to close it.

We have all exhausted the subject and its time to move on to other topics.

Thank you all for contributing here.

Jedi