Georgina Woodward
By 'must be aware', I mean they are nodoubt aware (rather than as a warning).
Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli
It is difficult writing without a full sized keyboard.
See scholarpedia_Bell's theorem, to see the assumptions of QM that lead the illusion of entanglement.
Do the rabbit from hat performance 100 times, take the hat to Mars and do it again. For the naive observer it is consistent with the idea that the results shows that magic rabbits materialise from thin air. It does not prove or disprove the speculation. To be reality the explanation of why that is found, must correspond to what actually happens . The results of the experiment are not enough to verify the Idea of magic rabbits or entanglement.
Georgina Woodward
This is important. Results are ether compatible with a proposed theory or not. if not compatible, the proposed theory is _rejected. _As falsified. Unless experimental error is found allowing the experiment to be repeated and reassessed - That is, after the needed corrections to the method or apparatus . Results being compatible with the proposed theory do not show the theory is a correct explanation for them or that it is a correct hypothesis. It only shows the hypothesis not falsified. The results are not proof. Other explanations, other hypotheses could be equally compatible.
Georgina Woodward
The results of rabbits being pulled from hats is compatible with the 'Magic rabbit theory'. It does not prove it. 'Caltech article , "Proving that Quantum Entanglement is Real" says " The Freedman–Clauser experiment was the first test of the CHSH inequality. It has now been tested experimentally hundreds of times at laboratories around the world to confirm that quantum entanglement is real". Note- However many times the rabbit and hat trick is performed , Magic rabbit theory is never proven. The use of the words 'confirm' and 'real' are misleading. This is just one example of the misunderstanding of what results show about a hypothesis.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
You remain unclear on the concept. The results are not being compared to a theory prediction, they are being compared to a theorem prediction; a theorem (Bell's theorem) that has been proven to be true. There is, as you say, some probability that a mere theory may be false. But there is no possibility whatsoever, that a proven theorem may be false. So the only remaining question is, is that proven theorem, even relevant to the actual, physical problem?
For example, there is no doubt that the Pythagorean theorem is correct, but is it even relevant to the problem of determining the distance to be traveled, between two points, when the travel path between those two points, turns out to be something other than a straight line?
Even if you have a proven "Magic rabbit theorem", it is not going to yield a lot of correct predictions about what might come out of a "Magic fruit hat", that only produces a random selection of fruits, rather than rabbits. The rabbit theorem is not wrong, but it is irrelevant. Instead of "testing" Bell's Theorem, physicists should be testing quantum results against Shannon's Theorem, not Bell's theorem; because Shannon's is the relevant theorem, if you ever hope to understand quantum phenomenon.
Just as the Pythagorean theorem will not yield accurate distance predictions for non-straight paths, Bell's theorem will not yield accurate correlation predictions for non-identical particles; but Shannon's theorem does.
- Edited
Robert McEachern i have done excavations around what are the things that you mention, by seeing a couple of papers, i have not tried to remember/ understand exactly , however if by theorem , you refer to shanon capacity of communicating symbols, this does not tell much about the symbols/ states/ figures / distinctions,(things that end/change); a number is the outcome, and in a previous post ive said why numbers letters are bad . now i check to see. confirmed
- Edited
this does not tell much about the symbols/ states/ figures / distinctions
Shannon proved that you cannot use any of those things, if you desire a system to be reliable (AKA deterministic).
You have to use NOISE, not numbers, not pictures, not letters, not figures, not symbols, you must use white noise, in order to reliable cause any effect, near the "Shannon Limit" of Information Content.
tell or care, i wanted to edit, before you rushed to reply, im not convinced byy own reasoning / reached a clear result is a hunch.
Robert McEachern
Thank you Robert for your reply.
I am thinking about science , and specifically how entanglement is proposed as an explanation of 'spooky action at a distance. That entanglement is a cause , is a speculation that could be written as a hypothesis. it is often presented as if a fact , as if explaining something about the World rather a proposal with questionable relevance to actual existence and happening.
You are quite right Bell's theorem is mathematics and can be mathematically proved. Binary outcomes just considered as values ( qualitative, up or down or yes or no) do not reveal how they came to be the 'value' they are. Correlation due to same or opposite orientation is different from random co-occurrence at different angles. They are the result of different physical interactions between the material elements of reality. Lumping the differently obtained outcomes together because they have the same 'value' has to be incorrect science though it is ok in math. In science, philosophy of science, at any rate, we are concerned with what happens to produce the outcomes not just the outcomes.
The imagined Magic rabbit theory is based on the hypothesis that rabbits appear and can be pulled from hats because of magic. it is not an imaginary mathematical theorem. It is not a magic fruit hat, rabbits are removed from it . The results are compatible with the hypothesis of magic but do not prove magic has happened. In the same way repeating an experiment many times does not provide proof of the hypothesis ,in science. Magic in the imagined example and entanglement are in the same predicament . They can only be falsified not proved by science. if the premise that as relative measurement states don't exist before measurement there is no relation of particles produced as a pair pre measurement is accepted entanglement is reasonable . However it is not necessarily so. Things can exist independently of there being an observation product. Is the moon there when i don't look?][ viXra:2301.0109 ](https://) Peekaboo, object permanence. if there is a pre -measurement relation influencing outcomes instead entanglement is an incorrect hypothesis.
- Edited
if there is a pre -measurement relation influencing outcomes instead entanglement is an incorrect hypothesis.
There is a pre-measurement relation influencing the outcomes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The particles are not identical twins!!!!!!!!!!
Both Bell's theorem and Quantum Theory have ignorantly assumed that they are!!!!!!!!!
That assumption is false! That is the problem!
Mathematics is reality, even if not our experienced reality. It is the laws with which the universe is written, as Galileo said. Plus, Penrose says reality is real. 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09633
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.013418
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905002
https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files4/d8a229b3a90c803764004b69cbb457f6.pdf
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_82
Mathematics is reality
Math is real. So is the Earth. But they are both just tiny parts of Reality.
It is the laws with which the universe is written
Not quite. The laws merely describe observable effects, but they never even address the fundamental question of what actually causes any of those effects.
- Edited
Shakespeare once wrote that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
He could have been speaking about physicists' lack of understanding of the relationship between math and physics.
The problem I have just revealed, is, in REALITY the exact same problem that I have pointed out previously, in regards to Quantum Theory: one does not need to fret over an inability to correctly recover some supposed information, that one knows was never there to begin with.
When an algorithm developer (or Mother Nature) knows, a priori, that there is no "needle in the haystack" (because they created the haystack themselves, and know they never put a needle into it!) their algorithm never needs to bother, with ever even trying, to "find the needle in the haystack"; just output the "starting execution" signal, then output the "halting execution" signal, to indicate that all the solutions have been found, all zero, "0", of them. And the poor, observing physicists are all stunned, and left wondering "how could it (reality) have possibly discovered that?!" all the while being totally oblivious to the fact that something that created "a haystack with no needles to be found" does not have to fret over trying to find any.
Static "math theorems" and static "laws of physics", that never change in time, are like computer programs that are never allowed to actually execute; they can never cause any effect to happen, in REALITY. Like the ultimate hacker, REALITY keeps overwriting its own code, while it is being executed, and never halts, and can never be adequately characterized by unchanging Math Theorems and Laws of Physics.
So, as Godel pointed out in his famous Incompleteness Theorem, no fixed-size set of axioms can adequately characterize everything. But a REALITY that keeps overwriting and enlarging its own set of axioms may, over a great deal of time, completely change its own code, its own nature - the Nature of Reality.
"Reality is not based on first principles. It is not based on any static set of principles. It is based on the accumulation of information. The processes at work in the universe "learn" new information and use it to accomplish things that could never be accomplished until after that particular information had been learned. That is why so many processes occurring in the universe are not time symmetric, even though the equations we use to model them are. The difference in behavior lies in the time-varying information content of the initial conditions, not just the equations.
The problem lies in the fact that, over time, any model will cease to be relevant, because the accumulation of enough new information can always be used to create new processes that were not present at the time the old model was created."
That quote is from pages 328-329 of a book that was published over thirty years ago.
I have spent the past thirty years, trying to rouse physicists from their dogmatic slumbers, as Kant was roused by Hume. But to no avail: physicists are no longer merely slumbering, they have become completely comatose.
But not to worry - AI will soon be replacing them all, just as predicted in that book.
Robert McEachern
The meanings of ‘reality’
Some definitions of the word ‘reality’ from Oxford languages;
“the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”
“a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind.”
“PHILOSOPHY, existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.”
I'm thinking about the kind of reality that exists without need for measurement or observation for its independent existence, . created as a particle pair the individuals have same or opposite absolute orientation within the pattern of all existing things., A relation toeach other retained until disturbed, If measured with same or opposite orientation of measurement correlation will be found. The assumption that there ought to random coming to be somehow coordinated without communication is a problem. A problem of a mismatch between theory and what happens in the real world,
Georgina Woodward
Yes, the relative measurement is newly formed, but not isolated from the pre -existing measurement-independent existence of the particles.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
I'm thinking about the kind of reality that exists without need for measurement or observation for its independent existence, . created as a particle pair the individuals have same or opposite absolute orientation
So what do you think will happen, when those particle pairs are created with the same or opposite orientation, but with every individual particle having a slightly different, random "shape", that has been very cleverly engineered, in accordance with Shannon's proven recipe/theorem, to cause gross, non-random, systematic errors, in many of your subsequent measurements? Do you think that those pairs, will still correlate in the same manner, as pairs that have not been "messed with", in a way that has been specifically engineered to alter those very correlations?
That is the "kind of reality that exists" in reality.
Robert McEachern
I don't know that they are differently shaped. maybe you could link a relevant paper showing what is "Shannon's proven recipe". Maybe you can explain the relevance. i assume that a loss of matching or opposite orientations would just be regarded as a loss of coherence due to interaction with something in the environment. A few pairs can be lost in this way-Nevertheless, the higher than chance correlations need an explanation and entanglement isn't it.
- Edited
I don't know...
"The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they know so much that ain’t so." Josh Billings
I have been giving you a link to "a relevant paper", repeatedly, for years. For once, please actually read it. Study it. Then actually download the computer code and run it; exactly as instructed in the short, easy to read paper. In just thirty minutes, you can reproduce the entire experiment/demonstration, right in front of your own eyes, on your own computer screen. That is far, far less time, than you have been devoting to all your futile speculations. Stop speculating and just run the demonstration. It has been freely available on fqxi.org, for seven entire years now, and not a single person out of the thousands of people that have examined it over the years, have ever publicly claimed to have found any flaw in it - quite the contrary. The supposedly impossible results, were independently verified within just a few weeks of my original fqxi post regarding this, back in August, 2016.
Reality does not work the way you think it works.
Reality does not work the way any physicists think it works.
Reality (deterministic behaviors) works the way Shannon proved that it must work, 75 years ago.
And Reality stops behaving deterministically, and starts behaving with "quantum weirdness", right where Shannon's Theorem proven that it must - at one bit of Information - Shannon's definition of Information - not physicists!
- Edited
Robert McEachern
Sorry for asking. i did not know you would think that relevant to the discussion You present A Classical System for Producing“ Quantum Correlations” Robert H. McEachern, yet I am taking about the problem of proposing that entanglement happens as an explanation for correlation of 'seen this way' relative, detection matches., When using the quantum physics idea that the correlations found need explaining, as they do not show each individual outcome as random. > Robert McEachern The supposedly impossible results, were independently verified within just a few weeks of my original fqxi post regarding this, back in August, 2016."
OK, those results are found. I don't disagree that the results were as described. They are as they are but don't explain for themselves why.
Already i have talked about the numbers of matches found referring to a simple Bell's test. Different angle outcomes that happen by chance to correspond can not be counted as being the same as matches at the same orientation even though they have the same 'value'. Therefore we have two categories treated as one. We have correlations due to absolute orientations and correlations due to chance. Hats and scarves. The existing particles and existing experimenter and apparatus within independent of measurement absolute space. Why is the fraternal twin particle explanation needed in addition?
Robert McEachern Reality does not work the way you think it works.
Reality does not work the way any physicists think it works.
Reality (deterministic behaviors) works the way Shannon proved that it must work, 75 years ago.
Firstly maybe. Secondly I think that is true for the majority of mainstream physicists, working with Einstein's relativity and those working with quantum physics.
Thirdly I'm just not sure of that.