شكرا للمشاركة دكتور

اعتذر عن الاجابه ليس من ضمن اختصاصي

Good questions.

I dont have a Qualified answer.There are many layers in the questions.

[email protected]

There's no EPR paradox. Quantum mechanics does describe entanglement, since it describes states that do not exist in the classical limit. That was the question that EPR raised: whether all states of a quantum system could be mapped to states of a classical system. The answer is negative and it has, indeed, been tested by experiments, since Aspect in the 1980s and many more since.

What is important to keep in mind is that phase space≠spacetime and the number of dimensions of phase space don't have anything to do with the number of dimensions of spacetime.

Dear Stam Nicolis ,

could you explain why there should be entanglement without any paradox?

Did you test it? What are the experiments you quote on? How gets entanglement been proved? Wasn´t there the `instantan´–problem (information at a distance at the same time)?

Do you know the results of Zeilinger?

There's no paradox, because the mathematical description isn't inconsistent. Entanglement simply means that there exist joint probability distributions, defined by solutions of the many-body Schrödinger equation, for instance, that don't factorize into products of local probability densities. It's straightforward to show this. The only issue is, how to test their properties experimentally. The technology for that is available since the 1980s and the thought experiments of the 1930s have now become real experiments-and have been carried out, all over the world.

The statement about instantaneous transmission of information implying a contradiction with special relativity is wrong, because non-relativistic quantum mechanics has the same causal structure as non-relativistic classical mechanics.

Stam Nicolis ,

all you say seems more describing, less concrete. The paradox doesn´t come by any mathematical discription. It comes by interpretation of real results of that experiment (did you follow that?). Math does no real experiment of physics! Math gets used as the formalism for calculation, nothing more. So math has to depent on real facts — but doesn´t in expert opinion as I proved by my reform.

`Paradox´ isn´t based on entanglement but on instantaneous (thanks for the right spelling / writing) correlation of the measured spin. I did the question too short, as I think. I meant the whole experiment of paradox coming by entangled photons.

It could not help to make a statement by that the paradox could not happen `because ...´ while just this `because´ should get analysed.

So what is your proof?

The proof is the statement that it's possible to find solutions of the many-body Schrödinger equation(that's not covariant under Lorentz transformations anyway) that define probability distributions that don't factorize. There's no inconsistency, because relativistic covariance isn't assumed, so it's not surprising that it isn't recovered. All standard properties of a probability distribution do hold, by a trivial check. This is a standard homework assignment in a course on quantum mechanics. Hence no paradox.

Paradoxes only make sense if a mathematical description is inconsistent. There's no such thing as an ``interpretation'', since it can't be given any impersonal meaning. The only thing that matters is the impersonal mathematical description, that provides the basis for impersonal experiments.

Mathematics doesn't depend on any ``real facts'' (the term is meaningless)-it's either consistent or not.

Once more: It doesn't make sense to demand that non-relativistic quantum mechanics be relativistically covariant-that's why the claim that, since non-relativistic quantum mechanics describes non-local correlation, it's inconsistent, is wrong.

The claim by EPR in fact isn't that non-relativistic quantum mechanics is inconsistent; it's that it's incomplete. That statement is, of course, correct. However the reason it's incomplete isn't because there exist hidden classical variables (that are, still, defined in a non-relativistic setting); but because non-relativistic quantum mechanics is the non-relativistic limit of relativistic quantum mechanics that is a full description, that does describe entanglement in a relativistically covariant way.

Again not concrete. Consistence at one side (math) only wouldn´t fit. There has to be isometry between math and reality. Not present for multiplication of prefixed factors, the square-root-function, the imaginary unit, the definition of group / ring / field, the Euler-Equivalence and also at the second slash argument of Cantor.

It's a common habit of confusing what's real-a synonym is concrete-with what's familiar. Though there's no excuse these days for quantum mechanics remaining less familiar-or concrete-than Newtonian mechanics.

Complaining about mathematical terms simply doesn't make sense. The mathematics is, simply, an impersonal way of expression. There are many, equivalent ways of saying the same thing.

The bottom line is: Quantum mechanics does take into account the concerns voiced by EPR, does provide a mathematically consistent description of the correlations and these correlations have been measured in real experiments.

The statement that the non-locality of these correlations implies an inconsistency of the mathematical description, since it's not consistent with relativistic covariance is wrong, because non-relativistic quantum mechanics doesn't rely on relativistic covariance at all.

in my opinion, discussions about stationary universe is useless

The stationary universe is irrelevant for anything that has to do with EPR.

اتفق مع اجابة ستام نيكوليس

Knock, knock! Wake up! Is there someone who understands the question (except first answer and recommendation)?

I think good answer is in the link

Article Physics and Reality

Maged Gumaan Bin-Saad

Maybe. But I cannot read everythink. The paper only is on request. Personal, detailed explanation is welcome and makes discussion.

Paradoxon can be avoided by using 2 logics, the one to the theory and the second to be about the 1st logic

Paul Pistea ,

do you know the EPR-paradoxon?

Each one paradoxon can be avoided by using 2 logics- you do not know how, cause it is my invention.

PS. If you do not know Einstein podolsky rosen you can google, dear Peter

Could you use it at the two different assertions of EPR-paradoxon? Please tell me how.

I didn´t ask on EPR(-paradoxon) for me, I asked whether you do know. But not the names; the two assertions were ment.

At theory level one has to use fuzzy logic. Binary logic is to use when concluding about theory propositions. At theory level propositions can be true to (for instance) 73 percent. One has to conclude at epi- theory level if it is true to 73 percent, yes or no.

Paul Pistea ,

sorry, your answer has nothing to do with the problem I quoted.

It makes no sense to explain the EPR-paradoxon here if one didn´t know it.

Discusion should be for well informed people.

1st. Speed of light is not constant (RT axiom is false). C is a limit for light speed. Ergo: 2 particles could interact faster than speed of light, even when slower than c. 2nd. I have demonstrated that natural constants de facto are variabile. 3rd. Uncertaintly principle works. Satisfied?

Sorry, correct is uncertainty. And:variable

اعتذر عن الاجابه .. ليس من ضمن اختصاصي

Dear Peter Kepp, any objections? Maybe you ask what about using 2 logics? RT is not 100 percent false. That's epi-theoretically True!

Dear Alexandru Szel,

nice to get a recommendation to what posted ever. But — as I said to Nancy Ann Watanabe — what worth should those recommendations have, if given to all?

You recommended: ”اعتذر عن الاجابه .. ليس من ضمن اختصاصي”

Did you understand that? I don´t. Rules on RG are to post in English. And it wasn´t. So — for most RG-members — the answer of اسرار عبدالزهرة is not to understand.

Please do not recommend both different viewpoints. That wouldn´t be a paramounting of whole the discussion! You can do a special text for that; not just some lazy clicks. Paramount your recommendations by sorting to a viewpoint that is clear different to others.

Thank you, Peter

A. 27 Extpanding the question

Answer 27, posted 17. March 2020

============================

Dear Paul Pistea ,

I don’t think that it is on two different logics what you are talking about. In my opinion it’s on two different assumtions. That’s my way. EPR-paradoxon can’t be fuzzy-like.

Let´s try to search for facts to proof or disproof teleportation.

At the experiment there could be no match (equalness) by 1 of 3 because of different orientation (3-dimensionality). A screw ever is right-turning or left-turning independent of its orientation. So the spin of the photon at EPR-paradoxon too.

Passing the Stern-Gerlach-Experiment the entanglement and orientation get qualified (conditioned).

1 of 2 shots (photons) with the same sort of spin. This happens at the source. One of the entangled photons of the output of the Stern-Gerlach-Apparature leaves and gets measured by comparison with another entangled photon produced at the place of the receiver.

The photon at the receiver-place also is at one of the possible spins by 1 of 2.

All at all a 1 of 4 match (equalness).

So Zeilinger stated. Logical conclusion: No teleportation; only match by coincidence.

Any comments?

Dear Peter Kepp, both, Einstein and bohr are not 100 percent right: wave function is not a 100 percent complete descriptIon of reality (ergo fuzzy like maybe 83 percent correct). Bohr's interpretation is less than 100 percent true: when measuring particles interaction occures not instantly, but faster than c.

That´s not my question.

To proof or disproof means yes or no, You don' t accept partial true answers.

Teleportation is not possible without locating. To locate one needs more than 3 dimensions; one needs at least 5 dimensions: 3 in space and 2 in time (variation of space and variation of variation of space, because motion can be non- uniformly)

For to argue on partial true statements one should have a function to measure the value of the truth. That was done by Kuck at `Non-monotonic learning automata´ (which I studied).

Here I want to restrict to an `either or´- decision. My way leads to a clear disproof of the so called `teleportation´.

Please read A. 27.

No discussion beneth the path. So your way by arguing on dimensions. I gave my opinion at other threads about that. No dimension above 3!

Thanks for your participation anyway, Peter

Dear Peter, you are right, for to fuzzy argue one can use a database. In my opinion teleportation is very unprobably. There is much speculation in QT and some false conclusions in RT. Thank You too., all the best, Paul

PS. I am analysing physics by using distributions theory and functionals.

Analysing RT and QT, both, together (!) One can- as unifyed them- the results of an unification. Well, I did that and have those answers

شكرا للمشاركة دكتور

اعتذر عن الاجابه ليس من ضمن اختصاصي

Asrar Abd-ulzahra Ali

What does that mean in English? I can´t understand your answer because I cannot read it / your language. Sorry.

Please hold the rules; posting English (using a second language as double may be excused).

I apologize for the answer, not under my specialty