As so often happens in threads (particularly ones in which I am involved in, but that's purely coincidental) things became somewhat off-topic. I have begun a new topic so that the discussion will be on topic. And that topic has to do with a well-known quip of Einstein's, what it meant then and what it means now.
It all began in a galaxy far, far, away (but which happens to be the one Earth is in), and this comment:
For any interested parties who might not know, "spooky action" is a translation of something Einstein said. Rather than take my word it, though, I will let use a description from a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Please note that I am not trying to connect the actual study itself to Einstein's work or to anything else. I am simply using their description because
1) That way no one has to take my word for it
and'
2) Generally speaking, PNAS doesn't publish papers with glaring errors in them.
The description:
"In simple words, the correlated spins of the EPR experiment are in some contact over arbitrary space-like distances of our spacetime continuum, and if one spin is measured in one station, the correlated spin in another station is instantaneously influenced. This fact contradicts the locality conditions of Einstein and Einstein's very argument, for lack of completeness of quantum mechanics. Einstein called the instantaneous interaction of the spatially separated spins spukhafte Fernwirkungen (spooky action at a distance). He did not accept the possibility of such spooky action and, because quantum mechanics appeared to demand it, it had to be at least incomplete. The Bell theorem and its standard interpretation have turned the logic around. Its supporters now claim that local hidden parameters do not exist and cannot explain the EPR experiments. Quantum mechanics does agree with these experiments, and spooky action at a distance must be accepted as a fact of nature." (source)
EPR is shorthand for this study:
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?. Physical review, 47(10), 777.
In it, the authors argue that quantum mechanics is either incomplete, or non-local. To be clear, non-local means that a physical system in quantum mechanics can be characterized as being in two (or more) states at the same time.
As the authors of the PNAS paper (quoted above) note, Einstein believed that this non-locality indicated QM was incomplete. Once again, however, you don't need to take my word for it:
"A good way of thinking about such apparent instantaneous spooky action at a distance (as Einstein put it) is to realize that the entangled state must have been prepared locally by having let the two subsystems interact at some point in the past. When these two subsystems are then separated from each other, the quantum state is simply spread out (i.e., delocalized) over a larger spatial region." p. 31
Schlosshauer, M. A. (2007). Decoherence: and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer Verlag.
"John Stewart Bell further drew out the counter-intuitive implications of the presence of entangled states in quantum theory by delimiting the border between local classically explicable behavior and behavior that is not locally causal, with a theorem involving an inequality. This inequality must be obeyed by local (hidden-variables) theories that might be introduced in order to explain all correlations between two distant subsystems forming a compound system, such as one described by the above state when the particles are well separated. Schrödinger believed that such states of widely separated subsystems could not be realizable in practice. However, it was subsequently found to be violated in essence by a broad range of quantum-mechanical systems, such as a pair of photons in the singlet state of Equation 1.21. Bell-type theorems are discussed further in Section 1.8, below. When asked to describe his theorem in plain English, Bell said that
'It comes from an analysis of the consequences of the idea that there should be no action at a distance, under certain conditions that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen focussed attention on in 1935conditions which lead to some very strange correlations as predicted by quantum mechanics.'" p. 20
Jaeger, G. (2009). Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer.
The member quoted above disagrees with me on this:
The reference to Aspect is to Alain Aspect who, with his colleagues, published the first experimental realization of nonlocality in a ground-breaking 1982 study
"Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities" (source)
This study showed correlations between nonlocal particles (i.e., spatially seperated, in this case by a few meters) that couldn't be explained via "hidden variables".
Gisin, the physicist usually named right after Aspect, performed basically the same experiment, but over a period of many kilometers and more than once. In "Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart", the authors state:
"Quantum theory is nonlocal. Indeed, quantum theory predicts correlations among distant measurement outcomes that cannot be explained by any theory which involves only local variables. This was anticipated by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen."
Once again, however, there seems to be a problem with what Einstein said:
Of course, the entire point of EPR was to prove that "classical logic doesn't apply to quantum system", but somehow Aspect (who cites Einstein), seems to have missed this. Not only that, but the entire physics community seems to have fundamentally misunderstood one of the most famous papers ever published:
Einstein was wrong in that he thought "spooky action at a distance" meant QM must be incomplete. In EPR, those are the options: either we have nonlocality, or QM is incomplete. Einstein believed that QM must be incomplete, and in that he was wrong. Because the "spooky action" is well-established. EPR has been cited well over 10,000 times, including this past month.
So, my first question is given this expertise, why is it that scientific literature, from monograph series to the most distinguished journals on the planet, don't reflect the views this experts views?
It all began in a galaxy far, far, away (but which happens to be the one Earth is in), and this comment:
For any interested parties who might not know, "spooky action" is a translation of something Einstein said. Rather than take my word it, though, I will let use a description from a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Please note that I am not trying to connect the actual study itself to Einstein's work or to anything else. I am simply using their description because
1) That way no one has to take my word for it
and'
2) Generally speaking, PNAS doesn't publish papers with glaring errors in them.
The description:
"In simple words, the correlated spins of the EPR experiment are in some contact over arbitrary space-like distances of our spacetime continuum, and if one spin is measured in one station, the correlated spin in another station is instantaneously influenced. This fact contradicts the locality conditions of Einstein and Einstein's very argument, for lack of completeness of quantum mechanics. Einstein called the instantaneous interaction of the spatially separated spins spukhafte Fernwirkungen (spooky action at a distance). He did not accept the possibility of such spooky action and, because quantum mechanics appeared to demand it, it had to be at least incomplete. The Bell theorem and its standard interpretation have turned the logic around. Its supporters now claim that local hidden parameters do not exist and cannot explain the EPR experiments. Quantum mechanics does agree with these experiments, and spooky action at a distance must be accepted as a fact of nature." (source)
EPR is shorthand for this study:
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?. Physical review, 47(10), 777.
In it, the authors argue that quantum mechanics is either incomplete, or non-local. To be clear, non-local means that a physical system in quantum mechanics can be characterized as being in two (or more) states at the same time.
As the authors of the PNAS paper (quoted above) note, Einstein believed that this non-locality indicated QM was incomplete. Once again, however, you don't need to take my word for it:
"A good way of thinking about such apparent instantaneous spooky action at a distance (as Einstein put it) is to realize that the entangled state must have been prepared locally by having let the two subsystems interact at some point in the past. When these two subsystems are then separated from each other, the quantum state is simply spread out (i.e., delocalized) over a larger spatial region." p. 31
Schlosshauer, M. A. (2007). Decoherence: and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer Verlag.
"John Stewart Bell further drew out the counter-intuitive implications of the presence of entangled states in quantum theory by delimiting the border between local classically explicable behavior and behavior that is not locally causal, with a theorem involving an inequality. This inequality must be obeyed by local (hidden-variables) theories that might be introduced in order to explain all correlations between two distant subsystems forming a compound system, such as one described by the above state when the particles are well separated. Schrödinger believed that such states of widely separated subsystems could not be realizable in practice. However, it was subsequently found to be violated in essence by a broad range of quantum-mechanical systems, such as a pair of photons in the singlet state of Equation 1.21. Bell-type theorems are discussed further in Section 1.8, below. When asked to describe his theorem in plain English, Bell said that
'It comes from an analysis of the consequences of the idea that there should be no action at a distance, under certain conditions that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen focussed attention on in 1935conditions which lead to some very strange correlations as predicted by quantum mechanics.'" p. 20
Jaeger, G. (2009). Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer.
The member quoted above disagrees with me on this:
The reference to Aspect is to Alain Aspect who, with his colleagues, published the first experimental realization of nonlocality in a ground-breaking 1982 study
"Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities" (source)
This study showed correlations between nonlocal particles (i.e., spatially seperated, in this case by a few meters) that couldn't be explained via "hidden variables".
Gisin, the physicist usually named right after Aspect, performed basically the same experiment, but over a period of many kilometers and more than once. In "Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart", the authors state:
"Quantum theory is nonlocal. Indeed, quantum theory predicts correlations among distant measurement outcomes that cannot be explained by any theory which involves only local variables. This was anticipated by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen."
Once again, however, there seems to be a problem with what Einstein said:
Of course, the entire point of EPR was to prove that "classical logic doesn't apply to quantum system", but somehow Aspect (who cites Einstein), seems to have missed this. Not only that, but the entire physics community seems to have fundamentally misunderstood one of the most famous papers ever published:
Einstein was wrong in that he thought "spooky action at a distance" meant QM must be incomplete. In EPR, those are the options: either we have nonlocality, or QM is incomplete. Einstein believed that QM must be incomplete, and in that he was wrong. Because the "spooky action" is well-established. EPR has been cited well over 10,000 times, including this past month.
However, I am told that I have misunderstood everything I've read, and been informed that we have an expert to explain why:
So, my first question is given this expertise, why is it that scientific literature, from monograph series to the most distinguished journals on the planet, don't reflect the views this experts views?
Last edited:
opcorn:
