Hello Emmanouil: This is a great query to apply to quantum computing situations as well!! Great linking thermodynamics with inherent quanta. Thank you for sharing this research. Sincerely, Rajan Iyer ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL TEKNET EARTH GLOBAL

There is a technical problem that detectors count hits assigned to a unitary value, of many sightly different polarized photons from the filter’s angle and normalize therefore effectively their angle to a definitive value. This brings an accumulated over time error that could affect the EPR experiment giving an erroneous result. With other words, the two detectors are boosting correlated results in the experiment and that should not happen. Ideally, the Δ[BIE violation value] measured between consecutive runs of the EPR experiment should not be correlated with ΔΤ of the detectors. For example, an +0.5% increase of the violation value say fro 2.44 to 2.452 should not be correlated with an analogue increase in temperature between the two runs. You erroneously counting noise as hits and inflating your EPR result. Only when very sharp filters are used (very high Q factor) we will ensure that the BIE violation measured is a pure quantum mechanical non-locality effect and not affected by the apparatus.

If we have an entangled system of two photons then we have to think of this as a single system extended in space. The energy of each photon is given by E = hf and when a measurement is made on one of the photons the entire system is affected in such a way that the other photon (also with energy E = hf) will provide a measurement result which is affected by the act of measuring the first photon. My conclusion is that there is no energy transfer between the photons during measurement. Such an energy transfer would be limited to the speed of light.

The collapse of the entangled system due to the first measurement instantaneously affects the outcome of the second measurement but this does not provide a means of transferring useful information. So my conclusion is that a measurement of an entangled system is an adiabatic process in the sense that no energy is transferred between the entangled particles. Bells theorem applies to local hidden variables and with entangled systems we are dealing with non-local effects.

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Richard

Richard Lewis Your analysis is sound and also the science community consensus.

Nevertheless, no need for any information speed propagation limit explanations. If the two detectors are identical or similar in their technical specifications they don't need to commune or to exchange information with each other but simply will already have introduced and added a correlation factor into the EPR experiment. It would be interesting to see if the BIE violation collapses or changes when different specification filters (different quality factor Q parameter) are used in the EPR experiment. This test would be a strong indication of an Adiabatic loophole in the EPR experiment present.

If you look at quantum entanglement on Wikipedia you will see that the experimental results performed by Alain Aspect show that the measurement of one of the entangled pairs instantaneously affects the outcome of the measurement of the second member of the pair. It took many runs of the experiment and a statistical analysis to verify this result.

It does however say that: "A minority opinion holds that although quantum mechanics is correct, there is no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance between entangled particles once the particles are separated."

I do not agree with this minority view. I take the view that the predicted results of quantum mechanics are correct and that nature is non-local when it comes to measurement. However, this action at a distance only occurs at the point of measurement and is an instantaneous effect resulting from the collapse of an entangled system. The medium in which the collapse of an entangled system operates is spacetime.

Richard

This is quite a good video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_0o2fJhtScv

Richard

I agree about the medium which is the quantum vacuum. Since we don't know anything really about it (currently it is considered as a kind of superfluid exotic phase of matter condensate) we cannot exclude the possibility of superluminous phase in which vacuum space exists and therefore not perceivable by us in our space-time. This superluminous medium our universe is within could instantaneously propagate behind the scenes, the interaction and therefore appearing in our space time as spooky action at a distance thus as non-locality which by all means according to our spacetime perspective is true.

Explain to me one thing! If the probabilistic nature of the quantum is true why the EPR is steadily always generating this 85% correlation? Is that result not inferring that there is something deterministic behind the scenes after all? If quantum was truly probabilistic this percentage would be not be more or less a fixed value but rather varying for each run of the EPR experiment? Right?

Emmanouil Markoulakis The experiment works in such a way that you cannot draw any definite conclusions from one run of the experiment. It is only after repeating the experiment many times that you can show that you consistently get the 85% result. It's like tossing a coin and you might get heads three times in a row but if you toss a coin 1000 times you would expect your result to home in on around 50% of the tosses.

Then given the result of the EPR experiment over many runs you can show that the results are consistent with the predictions of quantum theory which do not predict a definite outcome for a single experiment but predict a probability of an outcome of the measurement.

Richard

Yes this is exactly what I mean by a run. The coin paradigm is a chaotic system but still determenistic and therefore its propability settles down to 50%. But they claim that a quantum srystem is trully propabalistic thus not chaotic therefore its propablilty should not seetle to any fixed value after many runs but vary all the time as true good random genrators do. But it does not. Why?

Emmanouil Markoulakis A quantum system is truly probabilistic which means that there is a definite probability of a specific outcome from any run of the experiment. This probability can be calculated from the wave function. This means that - just like the coin tossing - it will settle over many runs to a value predicted by quantum theory. The outcome is probabilistic not random.

The ingenious set up of the experiment creates an entangled system where the outcome of a measurement is not predetermined as the system wave interacts with the measuring system. But because of the particular structure of this spread out wave which is the entangled system the interaction with the measuring device results in a range of possible outcomes with a predictable probability.

The really clever part is that it proves that when the measurement takes place on one particle it instantaneously affects the outcome of the measurement of the other particle. If this were not the case then the results would correspond to measuring two separated non-entangled particles. So we get the result that there are non-local effects taking place when measuring an entangled system.

Richard

I just wanted to add a note about non-locality because it is handled differently by the Spacetime Wave theory as compared with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I will illustrate the point by talking about a photon coming from the sun and striking a leaf. In the Copenhagen Interpretation this photon has a wavefunction and this wavefunction collapses and the photon particle strikes a particular atom on the surface of the leaf. This collapse of the wavefunction is an illustration of the QM measurement problem.

In the Spacetime Wave theory interpretation the photon is a spread out wave quantum coming from the sun and as it arrives at the Earth there are many possible atomic electrons which could absorb this wave quantum. However, the photon can only be absorbed by one atomic electron and this happens instantaneously. If it were not instantaneous then an atom at point A and an atom at point B could both interact with the incoming photon. The photon being absorbed at A instantaneously prevents the photon from being absorbed at B. So the absence of the photon at B is an effect that happens faster than light could travel from A to B.

So in the case of the Spacetime Wave theory, non-local effects happen all the time when a photon interacts with an electron. Therefore we should not be surprised when non-local effects take place at the time of measurement of an entangled system.

Richard

In the entanglement experiment, each electron has a predetermined variable (a fixed quantum state). However, during measurement process, certain amount of energy can be added to each electron. Subject to the strength of the measurement such as the angle of magnetic polarization, for those electrons which have an energy above the threshold energy, their spins can be flipped to an opposite direction. Therefore, the possibility to find an opposite spins in the transformation is determined by the angle of the polarization which is conflict to "Superposition" in quantum theory where both spin up and spin down coexist in any single electron at all times. As to the entangled electrons (having same energy but in opposite spin directions), because of the same threshold energy applies to both entangled electrons under the same measurement (same angle of magnetic polarization), therefore, they both flip and still kept entanglement. As a result, there is no "Superposition" meaning "God doesn't play dies". Also there is no talking between entangled electrons no matter how far the distance and how fast the communication, meaning "No spooky behavior". As far as Bell's Inequality, because the space samples are different due to transformation, it cannot be used to prove if Hidden Variables exist.

Edward Wu Very interesting interpretation of the EPR and quantum entanglement.

I will study your attached files. For the time being, are you suggesting Superdeterminism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglT09Korr0&t=9s

Sabine Hossenfelder & Timothy Palmer - Rethinking Superdeterminism

All photons and electrons have predetermined quantum states (Hidden Variables). During photon polarization and electron magnetic polarization processes, their quantum states (Hidden Variables) can be changed either by adding energy to electron or reducing energy from photon to become a new quantum states (Field Dependent Hidden Variables). For further transformation (polarization processes), according to Principle of Normalization, a normalized quantum energy states can be achieved (Normalized Field Dependent Hidden Variables). Since Bell Inequality based on Set Theory can only be applied on the same sample space, therefore, Bell Inequality applying on the mixed sample spaces (the actual measurement) cannot be used to prove if Hidden Variables or Field Dependent Hidden Variables exist or not. Furthermore, both entangled photons and electrons have the same Hidden Variables except in opposite spin directions. Also under the same polarization processes (measurements), they both gain or lose the same energies and pass through the same threshold energy barriers to get to the same Field Dependent Hidden Variables. Therefore, they are always entangled no matter how far the distance and how fast the time are. Field Dependent Hidden Variables raises a big challenge to Bell’s Inequality, Quantum Superposition and Quantum Entanglement.

Since Bell Inequality based on Set Theory can only be applied on the same sample space, therefore, for polarization experiments applying on the mixed sample spaces (Hidden Variables and Field Dependent Hidden Variables), Bell’s Inequality cannot be used to prove if Hidden Variables exist or not. On the other hand, for Quantum Entanglement experiments applying on the same sample space of Hidden Variables, Bell’s Inequality does obeyed which proves the existence of the Hidden Variables (see attachment). Furthermore, since both entangled photons (and entangled electrons) have the same Hidden Variables except in opposite spin directions. Under the same polarization processes (measurements), they both gain or lose the same energies and pass through the same threshold energy barriers to get to the same Field Dependent Hidden Variables in opposite directions. Therefore, they are always entangled no matter how far the distance and how fast the time are. The existence of Hidden Variables fulfills Bell’s Inequality which raises a big challenge to Quantum Superposition and Quantum Entanglement.

Follow

Bell inequalities don't prove anything. I believe entanglement is hidden variables, not a spooky action at a distance. God doesn't play dice with the universe.

Actually, God doesn't play dice with anybody.

There are 2 different experiments in this question, bot have been classified as and EPR experiment. One is the Bohm "sock analogy" In this type experiment the relation between the photons is established at the creation. Hence, later correlation does not involve any later forces of temperature change.

The other type of experiment is the Alain Aspect experiment wherein photons in one of the legs of the experiment are changed and this change is communicated (by a superluminal means of force imposition) to the other leg. Because a force is involved, a temperature change must be involved.

Thanks John about this crucial information.

Both photon and electron have wave and particle properties. In Double Slit Interference experiment, particle detector can be used to influence the phase angles of particle waves such that the coherency is disturbed and the interference patterns are diminished or even totally disappeared. However, the interruption of the interference patterns cannot to be used to prove the non-existence of wave property, or even to prove that wave and particle properties cannot coexist at the same time under observation. Therefore, “Complementarity Principle” is not true. In addition, both photon and electron have predetermined quantum energy states (Hidden Variables). In electron spin measurements, energy can be added to electrons through electron polarization process. Subject to the threshold energy, electrons can move to the new quantum energy states (Field Dependent Hidden Variables) either by staying at the same spin mode or flipping of to the opposite spin mode. On the other hand, in photon polarization measurements, energy can be removed from photons through photon polarization process. Subject to the threshold energy, photons can either enter into the new quantum energy states (Field Dependent Hidden Variables) by maintaining the same spin mode or totally blocked by the energy barrier. Even more, through further transformations, both photons and electrons can be transferred to normalized quantum energy states (Normalized Field Dependent Hidden Variables). In Quantum Entanglement experiments, both entangled photons and electrons have the same Hidden Variables except in opposite spin directions. Under the same polarization transformation processes (measurements), they both gain or lose the same energies as passing through the same threshold energy barriers and have the same Field Dependent Hidden Variables except in the opposite spin directions. Therefore, they are always entangled no matter how far the distance and how fast the time are. Bell’s Inequality is based on Set Theory and can only be applied on the same sample space. Therefore, in photon polarization experiments, Bell’s Inequality applying on the mixed sample spaces cannot be used to prove if Hidden Variables exist or not. On the other hand, in Quantum Entanglement experiments, with the right experimental data, Bell’s Inequality applying on the same sample space does approve the existence of the Hidden Variables. As a result, both electron and photon do carry predetermined Hidden Variables, and Schrödinger’s Cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, “Quantum Superposition” cannot be true. Also, there is no mystery, no surprise and certainly no “Spooky” behavior. Einstein is correct after all.