[lisper]

It's only disputed by people who haven't actually looked at the math.

And I didn't say the state of the particle was already determined. It wasn't. Yes, of course superpositions are real. Yes, of course the Bell inequalities are violated. Yes, this eliminates all local hidden variables theories. Yes, it seems like this necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is spooky action at a distance. But that's wrong. To see why, read the paper or watch the video.

[Confusion]

I think this is merely a terminological difference.

What happens is:

- before observing one particle, observations on the other particle are described and predicted by an entangled, superposition, state.

- after observing one particle, observations on the other particle are described and predicted by a non-entangled, non-superposition state. The possible outcomes of the observations on the other particle, both predicted and measured, are different after the observation on the first particle.

Of course the observation causes a change in the state of both particles simultaneously. And I understand that strictly speaking, in the physical sense of the word, there is no 'action'. But does it really matter if people say they are 'acting on' the remote particle by observing the local particle, as long as they mean the exact same thing?

[lisper]

In some sense, yes, this is just quibbling over terminology (as all pedagogical issues ultimately boil down to terminology). But the terminological quibble is very subtle and profound.

> after observing one particle, observations on the other particle are described and predicted by a non-entangled, non-superposition state.

This is the misleading part. It is not true in an absolute sense. It is only true for the observer that makes the "first" measurement (with "first" in scare quote because relativity). It is not true for the observer of the "other" particle. There is no measurement that can be made on the "other" particle that will tell you if the first particle has been measured.

> The possible outcomes of the observations on the other particle, both predicted and measured, are different after the observation on the first particle.

This too is misleading because it assumes that "possibility" is a universal property and it isn't. The "possible" outcomes for the "other" particle change for the observer of the "first" particle, but not for the observer of the "other" particle. And even this is not quite right because it depends on whether the observations are time-like or space-like separated, and whether or not there is a classical communications channel open between the two observers. It gets complicated. Read the paper.

[armitron]

You do realize this is an open question right?

No jokeprod paper or video is going to put it to rest. You sound like a religious nutcase.

[lisper]

I realize that a lot of people think it's an open question. These people are wrong.

And the difference between me and a religious nutcase is that I can back up my position with math.

[gsteinb88]

Important to remember, especially if you're practicing physics or engineering in any form: models are not the real world. You're (kind of) right about the (typical interpretation of) the models we use for entanglement, but open questions in this field include things like whether a wavefunction is "real" or just a mathematical tool that seems to get the right results at the length/energy scales we look at.

tl;dr: Just because you have an equation doesn't mean that equation corresponds to anything real. This is the same mistake people make all the time with statistics -- the math is easy, finding the right math to use can be very hard.

[lisper]

No, these are not open questions. QIT answers all of them. It describes exactly how classical reality emerges from the quantum wave function, and hence settles the question of whether or not it is "real". The answer is: the question of whether or not the wave function is "real" is based on the false a assumption that "real" is a binary predicate. It isn't. Whatever the mathematics of the wave function describes does indeed exist, but it exists in a separate ontological category from classical reality.

See blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html for more details.

[typon]

You sound a lot like Sean Carrol in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ

Being so sure about your position when it isn't proven is a pretty bad way to do science. You're essentially implying that 3/4 people on that stage are wrong or idiots. I don't buy it.

[lisper]

I'm on the road with extremely limited internet connectivity so I can't watch a video at the moment. But may I make a suggestion? Why don't you read my paper or watch my video before you decide that I'm wrong. In fifteen years, no one who has actually read it has taken issue with it. (And, BTW, the only reason it isn't a published peer-reviewed publication is that when I submitted it, it was rejected on the grounds that it wasn't anything new. Which is true. Which is why I stopped trying to publish it.)

[typon]

Never said you're wrong. You may be right, I don't know. I just know that I don't believe you when you say extremely intelligent experts in the field are all wrong, except for one camp (they can even be a majority). I just have an epistemological problem with your views.

[lisper]

Again, hard to say without seeing the video, but my guess is that they're not wrong, they're just engaged in (IMHO) bad pedagogy.