Global warming progressing at moderate rate, empirical data suggest

Earth
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change."

The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures—caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors—can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.

The researchers say these "climate wiggles" can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.

"At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability," said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.

The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of as a result of interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

To test how accurate climate models are at accounting for variations in the rate of warming, Brown and Li, along with colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles," Brown said. "Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."

Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.

"Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections," Brown said. "Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario."

Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said. "That matches up well with what we're seeing."

There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. "Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change."


Explore further

Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

More information: "Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise," Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget; Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/srep09957
Journal information: Scientific Reports

Provided by Duke University
Citation: Global warming progressing at moderate rate, empirical data suggest (2015, April 21) retrieved 15 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-global-moderate-empirical.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
133 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 21, 2015
The arrogance and greed of men apply to both sides of this debate.
Have no doubt.

Apr 21, 2015
By moderate, do you think they mean, "as a secondary" effect to climate change?

We have some serious warming now from the reduced albedo in the North. This will cause warming.

So interesting the layers and layers of effects. I think we may finally see some warming on par with what alarmists have been warning about.

Or the reduction of our use of fossil fuels will have the desired impact. So hard to say anything, but that the wool is pulled over our eyes.

Apr 21, 2015
The researchers say these "climate wiggles" can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

That's it in a nutshell. They don't know 'nuthin..................Computer models are NOT SCIENCE.................

Apr 21, 2015
As someone who has always believed temperature is a secondary effect of climate change, one thing that has always puzzled about the temperature-warming thing. Why is it that "warming" isn't reversed when we have an entire cold year, or more?

Temperature doesn't have memory, does it?

Apr 21, 2015

That's it in a nutshell. They don't know 'nuthin..................Computer models are NOT SCIENCE.................


Computer models which don't track with actual empirical measurements, but are instead ideologically driven, are certainly bad science. Until the models accurately track real world conditions, we shouldn't put any faith in them or use them as a basis of policy. Unfortunately we have seen attempts to make the data fit the models instead of improving the models so that they fit the data.

Just adding fudge factors doesn't answer the question of why the climate measurements show "wiggles" either. Until we can incorporate the mechanisms driving the "wiggles", our models are untrustworthy. Until, given historical starting conditions, the models accurately correspond to measured conditions from then to now, we should give them no credence and make no policies based on them.

Apr 21, 2015
by over interpretation of short term trends, I'm sure he doesn't mean the fact that CO2 emissions are only about 100 years in the making now.

He probably does not mean to question catastrophic CO2 Global Warming dogma like that.

Oh..the last time I looked, real "climate" is +1,000 years

Apr 21, 2015
Water Prophet:
Northern hemisphere ice increased the past 3 years (counting this winter) both on land and on sea, so I don't know what you are talking about. NH Albedo actually went up.

Apr 21, 2015
Watermonkey talks all kinds of gibberish in mental class, not wearing a crash helmet upon entering class doesn't help either as he always forgets to turn the knob.. here have a look at his comments all 1 out of 5s: http://phys.org/n...ird.html

Big oil have not looked dumber in ages...lol

Now..... lets get this comments section on the roll,
C'mon monkey... let it out i want to see 200 comments from you, all rated 1 out of 5... You can do it... ;)

Apr 21, 2015
You could be right Returners, I do know the NW passage is being used, so it is down from somewhere. I don't follow it too much, too much controversy and false info..

The standby being, why is the North Pole watercolored in on Google? (Rhetorical.)

Apr 21, 2015
...an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century...

According to satellite measurements it's still going on and it's now a 17-year hiatus.

UAH satellite:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

RSS satellite:
http://images.rem...ies.html

Note the temperature spike from the 1998 El Niño. No year since then has been warmer.

The data from meteorological stations, however, appear to show a warming trend since 1998.

NASA GISTEMP:
http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

HadCRUT4:
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

Land-based measurements are influenced by local urban heat islands and are unevenly scattered around the earth. Satellite coverage is more globally uniform but also has problems. In fact, the temperature trends of both methods are derived from statistical analysis of large data sets; methods change results.

At least this study is using measurements instead of models.

Apr 21, 2015
Or the Sun has been decreasing its output:
http://en.wikiped...data.png
and mankind is still burning fossil fuels.

Apr 22, 2015
@aksdad


Land-based measurements are influenced by local urban heat islands.


The UHI effect has been studied and is not responsible for observed warming

http://static.ber...-104.pdf

Apr 22, 2015

...an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century...

According to satellite measurements it's still going on and it's now a 17-year hiatus.


I think you will find there there is a major problem with one or both series ....

The record for the last ~40 yrs all data collection methods show warming, in fact with RSS showing a slightly steeper slope.....

http://upload.wik...ures.png

This a good write-up of the problems associated with the satellite series .... not least their over sensitivity to ENSO.

http://www.pbl.nl/node/61690

http://www.pbl.nl...urements

Apr 22, 2015
OdinsAcolyte claimed
The arrogance and greed of men apply to both sides of this debate.
Have no doubt.
I doubt anyone who makes one-liners and especially so if they even touch of trying to deny basic Physics, eg radiative heat transfer eg of CO2 which has been known for > 100yrs and WITHOUT evidence to the contrary.

ie. Is it arrogant to accept smarter people than all here have delved into details re the key aspects of AGW & explored experimental evidence & empirical data to gain element of acceptance of that evidentiary position AND proclaim from that basis ?

A straightforward question, decades of physical properties known re GHGs & not refuted, all those arrogants who claim its something else & routinely fail have been offered to chance to prove & STILL fail eg Water_Prophet with his claim that CO2 is a "red-herring" & NEVER proven !

There is no both sides at all.

There is one side of physics & maths & evidence, other 'side' mere naive uneducated claims !

Apr 22, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
By moderate, do you think they mean, "as a secondary" effect to climate change?
Moderate means in that context no sudden change, like moving at a moderate rate such as in a car on a highway, not significant step changes in acceleration whether +ve or -ve.

Water_Prophet claimed
We have some serious warming now from the reduced albedo in the North. This will cause warming
But he STILL ignores 1.5+ W/m^2 from CO2's radiative forcing, is he ill or of low IQ ?

Water_Prophet claims
So interesting the layers and layers of effects. I think we may finally see some warming on par with what alarmists have been warning about
Examine Specific Heat, which Water_Prophet still cannot fully appreciate eg Ocean capacity !

Water_Prophet claims
Or the reduction of our use of fossil fuels will have the desired impact. So hard to say anything, but that the wool is pulled over our eyes.
But STILL he fails to understand CO2 persistence !

Apr 22, 2015
Woodwind claimed
Computer models which don't track with actual empirical measurements, but are instead ideologically driven, are certainly bad science
No.
The climate models in use are based on Physics & Maths and that MUST include error bars, the various curves point to different scenarios probabilistically related to heat movements, they are within error bars and thus are good Science.

If you have ANYTHING to the contrary then be precise re Physics & Maths to address it on the same level as the precision re Physics and Maths which creates & manages those models please ?

Uneducated claims you rehash from naive immature sources don't help you, as you appear unresearched & immensely naive.

This is the great thing about an education in Physics, you increasingly become immune to the puerile propaganda from politics & idiots & can delve into details, the irrefutable, well proven observable facts regarding heat & its flow with integration.

Otherwise is rubbish !

Apr 22, 2015
...watermonkeys like bannanas...

Apr 22, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
By moderate, do you think they mean, "as a secondary" effect to climate change?
Moderate means in that context no sudden change, like moving at a moderate rate such as in a car on a highway, not significant step changes in acceleration whether +ve or -ve.

Water_Prophet claimed
We have some serious warming now from the reduced albedo in the North. This will cause warming
But he STILL ignores 1.5+ W/m^2 from CO2's radiative forcing, is he ill or of low IQ ?


They still trying to figure out if he has an IQ in mental school. But he jumps at every opportunity once thrown a bannana... i always use this trick ... here monkey monkey.. :D

Apr 22, 2015
What they're saying is that the changes predicted by current climate models are smaller than the uncertainties. The uncertainties of measurements and models have been largely ignored by the alarmists. Uncertainties are dominant in the business of measurement.

Apr 22, 2015
Forestgnome observed
What they're saying is that the changes predicted by current climate models are smaller than the uncertainties
Which would be good as a starting point on the road to understanding the influence of the uncertainties & although a nice thing to see, one should not be complacent as they could be outside the uncertainties ie Beyond the error bars & degree to which they are will also tell us something so we can investigate the reasons for this; heat as a whole, specific heats, sea currents, jet stream, other GHGs etc etc - We have yet to connect more data despite the fact current data gives us a (temporary) sense of (any) comfort.

Forestgnome added
The uncertainties of measurements and models have been largely ignored by the alarmists
Maybe, I see uneducated media playing unhelpful role

Forestgnome
Uncertainties are dominant in the business of measurement.
Sure, the degree & effects demands earnest investigation to arrive at truth

Apr 22, 2015
What they're saying is that the changes predicted by current climate models are smaller than the uncertainties.
Not really. From the article:

"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles," Brown said. "Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."

What that means is that the predicted change is real and consistent with observations, but needs to be measured over longer time periods to allow natural fluctuations to be averaged out.
The uncertainties of measurements and models have been largely ignored by the alarmists.
Well, maybe the laypeople; certainly not the scientists.

Apr 22, 2015

When the observed data (11 year pause in warming) does not fit your hypothesis (AGW), you don't keep using the same hypothesis, or modify it just a little so the data "fits" like you want. You throw that hypothesis in the garbage can and start fresh!

Apr 22, 2015

When the observed data (11 year pause in warming) does not fit your hypothesis (AGW), you don't keep using the same hypothesis, or modify it just a little so the data "fits" like you want. You throw that hypothesis in the garbage can and start fresh!

That's all right then .... as the "hiatus" was entirely expected at some point.
But then you'd need to understand the science to get that.
I'm guessing that you're here for other reasons than to understand the science.
Correct?

Apr 22, 2015
Computer models which don't track with actual empirical measurements, but are instead ideologically driven, are certainly bad science


'Models' that 'track actual empirical measurements' are not models though, they are data sets. Models by definition are to make predictions when raw data is not available, like for the future.

The climate models in use are based on Physics & Maths and that MUST include error bars, the various curves point to different scenarios probabilistically related to heat movements, they are within error bars and thus are good Science.


Error bars are not indicative of the accuracy of a model, but rather provides a confidence level intrinsic to that model, possibly due to data used or to other uncertainties,... irrespective of how well or not well that model predicts the future. This is clear given that there are several climate models that are not within each others "error bars". i.e ... it does not of itself mean "good science".

Apr 22, 2015
,... IOW, theoretically a model could be "bad science", and yet still have accurately calculated error bars. The only way to determine good-science from bad-science is to compare predictions, not just retrodictions, to empirical data.

Apr 22, 2015
runrig,
I've asked before, and would like an answer, it seems important:

Why is there a linear correlation between fossil fuels burnt and temperature, but only a weak relation between CO2 and temperature?

Respectfully requested,

Apr 23, 2015
runrig,
I've asked before, and would like an answer, it seems important:

Why is there a linear correlation between fossil fuels burnt and temperature, but only a weak relation between CO2 and temperature?

Respectfully requested,

WP:
SInce you've "respectfully requested".

I personally find the correlation of Ave global temp vs atmospheric CO2 striking, .... and it must be said that global GDP would have a high correlation to CO2 output, and therefore also to global temps.

It is CO2 that has the power to cause current warming and not the waste heat causing the production of CO2. Orders of magnitude to low.
BTW: I tried for a good while but could not find a graph of GDP vs global temp.

http://decarboni....ig01.jpg


Apr 23, 2015
sdrfz claimed
When the observed data (11 year pause in warming) does not fit your hypothesis (AGW), you don't keep using the same hypothesis, or modify it just a little so the data "fits" like you want
What suggests you understand the hypothesis & how to interpret immensely averaged data ?

ie
Looking at a graph without education in; heat, specific heat, latent heat AND appreciation data is highly averaged & THEN making any suggestion re garbage makes you look immensely naive, immature & just plain stupid BECAUSE you've had great opportunity to learn of the issue since you joined April 2014 !

sdrfz claims
You throw that hypothesis in the garbage can and start fresh!
Only if there is NO warming across all measurement cells, this proves you wrong

http://images.rem...ies.html

sdrfz , why can't you be smarter, check FIRST before making a fool of yourself, or is the case you are paid to be narrow & avoid an education ?

Apr 23, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
I've asked before, and would like an answer, it seems important:
Why is there a linear correlation between fossil fuels burnt and temperature, but only a weak relation between CO2 and temperature?
Before Water_Prophet made this post he claimed CO2 was NOT causative several months before, I & others have already answered this & it hasn't changed.

Water_Prophet should know from his claimed degree in "Physical Chemistry" that "..correlation is NOT proof of causation.."

Water_Prophet claimed
Respectfully requested,
This is new, have requested as a matter of course in polite terms months ago he prove even one of the claims on a growing list but, best he could do words to the effect "..you monkey's can't understand a wristwatch..."

Water_Prophet proves yet again he has some odd problems; loss of memory, failure to understand simple issues, is erratic & the most likely; he has NO university training !

Apr 23, 2015
runrig offered
It is CO2 that has the power to cause current warming and not the waste heat causing the production of CO2. Orders of magnitude to low.
BTW: I tried for a good while but could not find a graph of GDP vs global temp
Indeed, the only one which I have seen with some validity although minimal is that re USA, which coincindetally has been the highest emitter of CO2 for a very long period.

runrig with a great link
http://decarboni.se/sites/default/files/imagecache/620xH/publications/22562/advanced/fig01.jpg
This has a long historical data & seems to match what we might expect re 2nd world war's immense mobilization manufacturing for the war effort following depression & the late 1800's rapid industrialization.

Its a great pity & very sad Water_Prophet, who's been on phys.org also as "The Alchemist" far back as Dec, 2012, still has written like anyone who claims "4 technical degrees"

Still nothing to prove any of his ego based claims :-(

Apr 23, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
I've asked before, and would like an answer, it seems important:
Why is there a linear ...., but only a weak relation between CO2 and temperature?
Before Water_Prophet made this post he claimed CO2 was NOT causative several months before, I & others have already answered this & it hasn't changed.

Water_Prophet should know from his claimed degree in "Physical Chemistry" that "..correlation is NOT proof of causation.."

Water_Prophet claimed
Respectfully requested,
... in polite terms months ago he prove even one of the claims on a growing list but, best he could do words to the effect "..you monkey's can't understand a wristwatch..."

Water_Prophet proves yet again he has some odd problems; loss of memory, failure to understand simple issues, is erratic & the most likely; he has NO university training !


the little wormies in the box is still his master, if they catch him say any clever things, they will punish him. :D

Apr 23, 2015
Here's an excellent, recent interview on global warming by one of the greatest scientific minds of the past century. Unfortunately because it does not mesh with their idealology the US media will not air it; it had to be done by a Canadian paper: http://www.vancou...erated=1

Apr 23, 2015
This is the great thing about an education in Physics, you increasingly become immune to the puerile propaganda from politics & idiots & can delve into details, the irrefutable, well proven observable facts regarding heat & its flow with integration.

Otherwise is rubbish !


While physics is helpful it is yet far from enabling us to understand the earth's most complex macro workings, let alone our galaxy's. The arrogance in the sciences today is reminiscent of the early Christian church. We truly understand very little in the grand scheme of things. We are finding more and more with studies in quantum physics that our world is really less predictable than we thought and that our so-called scientific method is breaking down because it accounts for a smaller part of what we think of as reality than we thought. So, get off your high horse!

Apr 23, 2015
The climate models in use are based on Physics & Maths and that MUST include error bars, the various curves point to different scenarios probabilistically related to heat movements, they are within error bars and thus are good Science.


"In 2005, a team led by Sarah Belia conducted a study of hundreds of researchers who had published articles in top psychology, neuroscience, and medical journals. Only a small portion of them could demonstrate accurate knowledge of how error bars relate to significance. "
http://scienceblo...ersta-1/

Apr 23, 2015
Intuition waffled obviously without basic education in Physics AND Mathematics with this uneducated jibe
While physics is helpful it is yet far from enabling us to understand the earth's most complex macro workings, let alone our galaxy's
No. Physics is Essential

You confuse {core} Physics with permutations/arrangements, sadly common

Eg. Science of the workings of a car ie The ECU which models Fuel/Ignition is SETTLED, the arrangements/patterns of those cars motion is primarily NOT physics it is in a paradigm shift re class of Emergent Properties
https://en.wikipe...mergence

Intuition claims
The arrogance in the sciences today is reminiscent of the early Christian church
Beg Pardon, you just proved you have NO education in Science, especially Physics !

Science="The discipline of the acquisition of Knowledge" but, Religion has ZERO discipline !

All religion fundamentally arises only via CLAIM, ie NIL objectivity means NIL Evidence !

cont

Apr 23, 2015
continued
@Intuition who claims
We truly understand very little in the grand scheme of things
We are so far ahead of ALL religions its scary how Evidence trounces claim again & again !

There may not be ANY "grand scheme", our average lifetimes are so VERY short with fallible memory, fallible & some would say declining cognitive skills to address any sort of continuity to even touch on any minor aspect of any "Grand Scheme".

Your language/tone suggests you are a Creationis/Ttheist, please confirm or deny that & in that respect clarify just what Scheme & how ANY claimed deity communicates that Scheme with ANY reliability ?

Intuition almost got it
We are finding more and more with studies in quantum physics that our world is really less predictable than we thought and that our so-called scientific method is breaking down because it accounts for a smaller part of what we think of as reality than we thought
Welcome to QM which is immensely accurate !

cont

Apr 23, 2015
continued
@Intuition who betrays himself
So, get off your high horse
Beg Pardon ?
Who are you addressing that comment to, those that spent years studying Physics you ignored or failed to ?

Current contemporary world is here ONLY because of Science & NOT any religion - which has held us back for ~2000 years - unless you include Islam - do you ?

The "high horse" you seem to object to is Evidence, the basis of Science is objective empirical evidence which, if you knew even basic high school maths, must be under the umbrella of probability & statistics.

Gods of ALLreligions have never existed, ALL are mere claims of primitive thinkers & have no basis for being taken seriously for a very basic reason, ALL of those claimed deities are BAD communicators.

In that respect ALL deities are left behind in the shadow of determinism as QM has shown, only logical phenomenological aspect with any chance of objective reality is to embrace ideal of Probabilism.

Learn Physics

Apr 23, 2015
Massen
]Welcome to QM which is immensely accurate !

cont


It is immensely accurate TODAY as it disproves so much we thought "immensely accurate" just decades ago. I'm am just as certain as you are today in your belief that you understand the accuracy of QM (quantum mechanics) that in a few more decades we will show just how incomplete our picture was back in 2015! You are exactly like the Christians of old in your arrogance and exemplify my point precisely with your dogma. By the way, QM behaves more as a mystic phenomena than any hard science. Are you going to throw a tantrum now and beat your chest?

Apr 23, 2015
That's all right then .... as the "hiatus" was entirely expected at some point.


The hiatus was unexpected.

http://dailycalle...e-wrong/

``Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."''


Apr 23, 2015
The hiatus was unexpected.

http://dailycalle...e-wrong/

``Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models ....."


As I said in my original rebuttal to you "I'm guessing that you're here for other reasons than to understand the science...."

Thanks for the confirmation, for neither your link to a right-wing mouth-piece or a quote from a contrarian climatologist is indicative of the science.
You conflate the models as being derminative. THEY ARE NOT. They are indicative only - hence the error bars.
It is/was expected becasue of ocean current cycles - periodically cooler surface waters in the Pacific ( La Nina conditions) enevitably crop up for lengthy periods.
BTW: This is your AGW..
http://www.skepti...ator.gif

Apr 23, 2015
Intuition claimed
It is immensely accurate TODAY as it disproves so much we thought "immensely accurate" just decades ago
No, you make immense immature naive misrepresentation.

QM started 1920's or even earlier & hasn't disproved, it has added a layer of probabilism to earlier deterministic models of physical phenomena, you are so out of step re history its disturbing, it show you have NIL formal training in essential Physics & especially so of QM & blurting from ego !

Intuition claims
I'm am just as certain as you are today in your belief that you understand the accuracy of QM (quantum mechanics) that in a few more decades we will show just how incomplete our picture was back in 2015
Immensely unlikely for same reason Newton's gravitational equation of ~400 years ago was NOT disproven as you assert, it was corrected re Lorentz & Relativity.

Nothing in QM actually disproves, if you think it does show it or get formal education in Physics at uni.

cont

Apr 23, 2015
By the way, QM behaves more as a mystic phenomena than any hard science.


That is absolute baloney. QM is often touted as "the single most successful theory in science". It has predicted and explained QUANTITATIVELY (i.e. in the "hardest" sense possible, with detailed mathematics) a vast range of experimentally observed phenomena not only in physics, but in fields from astronomy to chemistry to biology. Computational chemistry (i.e. using the principles of QM to predict how molecules react) is now sufficiently accurate that researchers often use calculations to help streamline and focus their experimental efforts.

In short, you could not be more wrong with that statement.

Apr 23, 2015
Intuition claims
You are exactly like the Christians of old in your arrogance and exemplify my point precisely with your dogma
No. If you had ANY understanding of Physics & Probability/Statistics you wouldn't naively claim "Exactly" - thats VERY dumb uneducated view

Science="The discipline of the Acquisition of Knowledge", religion= ZERO discipline but, hey I told you that before & can check, you appear immensely attached to a naive "intuitive" notion !

Intuition claimed
By the way, QM behaves more as a mystic phenomena than any hard science
Wrong !
AND depends how you view the time arrow in respect of phenomena as objective which cannot actually happen in so called classic QM but, hey you should KNOW this since you raised QM to start, read
https://en.wikipe...echanics

Intuition claims
Are you going to throw a tantrum now and beat your chest
This has no place, get an education, write from formal training not mere idle claim

Apr 23, 2015
Massen . . . it has added a layer of probabilism to earlier deterministic models of physical phenomena


Look, I admire that scientists keep trying. And, yes, that is correct; it shows layers of further understanding but my point is that it shows just how little we actually know. Einstein thought entanglement "spooky action from a distance". Was he an idiot in your estimation? From Newtonian physics to Relativity to QM to String Theory to future layers . . . they all show just how little we actually know at any given time. Scientists today ignorantly and arrogantly believe they have all the answers when the simple reality is that much of what we know can and likely will be completely upended in time. People like yourself are so blinded by their own hubris intellectualism that they fail to see larger possibility. It can be argued that science has made the world a better place just as it can the belief in God, but the opposite can be argued too. Some humility Sheldon Cooper!

Apr 23, 2015
Massen
. . religion= ZERO discipline but, hey I told you that before & can check, you appear immensely attached to a naive "intuitive" notion !


You show that you know nothing of the spiritual and the discipline involved in knowing God's creation in ways beyond your little science experiments. Your arrogance makes it clear you have ZERO discipline, but hey, keep playing. You might find a pony someday via your perpetual digging but will not get out of the little room in which you surround yourself.

God bless you!

Apr 23, 2015
Kelvin
By the way, QM behaves more as a mystic phenomena than any hard science.


That is absolute baloney. QM is often touted as "the single most successful theory in science". It has predicted and explained QUANTITATIVELY (i.e. in the "hardest" sense possible, with detailed mathematics) a vast range of experimentally observed phenomena not only in physics, but in fields from astronomy to chemistry to biology. Computational chemistry (i.e. using the principles of QM to predict how molecules react) is now sufficiently accurate that researchers often use calculations to help streamline and focus their experimental efforts.


QM is wonderful. But it's silly at this early stage (and 80 years is early) to think that we have begun to scratch the surface with such a paradoxical field. The fact that in the double slit experiment an observer changes the outcome shows that at least in part the observer effect shows subjectivity, which is more related to the mystical.

Apr 23, 2015
"In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right."

Freemon Dyson 2008

"Freeman Dyson is a scientist of enormous stature. For more than four decades, he taught theoretical physics at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study - described by the New York Times as "the most rarefied community of scholars" in the US."

Apr 23, 2015
QM is wonderful. But it's silly at this early stage (and 80 years is early) to think that we have begun to scratch the surface with such a paradoxical field.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't imply everyone else shares that shortcoming.
The fact that in the double slit experiment an observer changes the outcome shows that at least in part the observer effect shows subjectivity, which is more related to the mystical.
There is nothing subjective or mystical going on. If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. The presence or absence of an "observer" is utterly irrelevant; it is the interaction of the quantum state with the measurement apparatus that is important. The emphasis on "observers" being important is a grievous misunderstanding of an interpretational side-issue that has been perpetuated by "pop-science" books and articles.

Apr 23, 2015
Kelvin
There is nothing subjective or mystical going on . . . If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. The presence or absence of an "observer" is utterly irrelevant; it is the interaction of the quantum state with the measurement apparatus that is important.

The measurement apparatus (observer) is critically important. Electrons switch from waves into matter particles when they are observed. At the quantum level things turn to reality, particles, only when observed. Whether you're measuring for wave or particle is irrelevant in the bigger picture. It may help us measure things and make what you call "hard science" more useful, but what it shows me is that reality is subjective to the observer. Without the observer apparently there is no matter! Don't even mention the implications of the SQUID experiments. Two cats oscillating is a bit mystical

Apr 23, 2015
Kelvin
. . . Without the observer apparently there is no matter!

If you ask me when a wave collapses into matter when measured (observed) it is reminiscent of Jesus's transfiguration, where he raised off the ground and turned to light. It is as if He allowed the three apostles to see Him in wave form. I think QM shows us a tiny, tiny hint at what is possible.

Apr 23, 2015
The measurement apparatus (observer) is critically important.
Yes, I said that.
Electrons switch from waves into matter particles when they are observed.
Wrong.
At the quantum level things turn to reality, particles, only when observed.
Even more wrong. You are touting aspects of a particular interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), as if they are physical facts. They are not. There is no ambiguity about what can be measured; however as far as the *theory* of QM is concerned, there is a level at which we are not allowed to "look behind the curtain." So far, experiments bear that out, but it's possible that we'll figure out a way to make measurements that resolve these sort of interpretational issue, but for now we have to settle for the mathematics being consistent with all available observations (which is true so far). So, while QM cannot answer EVERY question, and some people naturally attribute mysticism to the unknown, QM itself is hard science.

Apr 23, 2015
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.

http://hyperphysi...act.html

Apr 23, 2015
At the quantum level things turn to reality, particles, only when observed.

Even more wrong.

There was a "something" existent all along, so nothing is created in some mystical way upon an observation per se,… but rather merely the 'form' in which things are Observed,… i.e. a particle.
If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. - DarkLord

…… and this implies that the apparatus Creates these properties, as a condition for Observation to be possible. The Observer designs these experiments at the macro-scale necessarily using concepts derived or evolved with at that scale…..

This is the sense in which an Observer is entirely relevant,… not because of mystical or subjective reasons, but rather epistemological,…. And is why 'quantum interaction' is not indistinguishable from 'mind dependent observation'.

Apr 23, 2015
There was a "something" existent all along, so nothing is created in some mystical way upon an observation per se,… but rather merely the 'form' in which things are Observed,… i.e. a particle.
If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. - DarkLord

…… and this implies that the apparatus Creates these properties, as a condition for Observation to be possible. The Observer designs these experiments at the macro-scale necessarily using concepts derived or evolved with at that scale.
It implies nothing of the sort, any more than the notion that using a thermometer to measure temperature creates the property of temperature.
And is why 'quantum interaction' is not indistinguishable from 'mind dependent observation'.
Pure metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that has to do with interpretations of QM theories, and not with anything physically measurable.

Apr 23, 2015
@Noumenon, In the world of Quantum there is weird and then there is WEIRD If you can think of a wave function that is eleven dimensional you can understand quantum string theory. In that quantum realm, mind-matter interaction may be possible. But at the macro-scale all of that would be lost and you would have 4D relativistic quantum mechanics to contend with. In that case, it's pretty safe to say the mind of the observer isn't going to be able to control spit with the quantum interaction he/she is observing.


Apr 23, 2015
If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. - DarkLord


…… and this implies that the apparatus Creates these properties, as a condition for Observation to be possible. The Observer designs these experiments at the macro-scale necessarily using concepts derived or evolved with at that scale.

It implies nothing of the sort, any more than the notion that using a thermometer to measure temperature creates the property of temperature.


There are no quantum "particle properties" and "wave properties" existent concomitantly, and independently of the experimental apparatus,... to imply that is metaphysics.

@howhot, I'm not suggesting that mind 'reaches out' and effects quantum systems.

Apr 23, 2015
If you set up an experiment to measure particle properties, then that is what you see. If you set up an experiment to measure wave properties, then that is what you see. - DarkLord
and this implies that the apparatus Creates these properties, as a condition for Observation to be possible. The Observer designs these experiments at the macro-scale necessarily using concepts derived or evolved with at that scale.
It implies nothing of the sort, any more than the notion that using a thermometer to measure temperature creates the property of temperature.
There are no quantum "particle properties" and "wave properties" existent concomitantly, and independently of the experimental apparatus, to imply that is metaphysics.
Prove it. All QM says for sure is that they cannot be *measured* simultaneously to arbitrary precision. The rest is interpretational; e.g. those properties exist explicitly in Bohmian mechanics, which reproduces experiment just as well as CI.

Apr 24, 2015
There are no quantum "particle properties" and "wave properties" existent concomitantly, and independently of the experimental apparatus, to imply that is metaphysics.

Prove it.

If by objecting to my statement, you are stating that there is 'particle property' or 'wave property' existent Independently Of Observation [pure metaphysics by definition, btw], then the onus is on you to prove that absurdity, not me.

Apr 24, 2015


All QM says for sure is that they cannot be *measured* simultaneously to arbitrary precision.

……for conjugate variables, which are Dependent upon the macroscopic experimental arrangement; IOW, the Hilbert-space basis representation, in which the state-vector (wave-function) evolves, and quantum operator, is Defined and Chosen given the macroscopic experimental apparatus design.

The wave-function itself is not even observable as a physical entity,… the "waves" in QM are mathematical, not physical.


Apr 24, 2015
..... the underlying reality at the quantum scale is in essence projected into conceptual forms like wave and particle,... which are a means of observing at the macroscopic scale.

There are no independent [metaphysical] properties,... all the information is in the wave-function, so there is no 'other properties' or information in which to say 'we are only looking at the particle property at this time (as if leaving something out),...... rather it's, we are supplying a basis in which to measure momentum, or we are supplying a basis in which to measure position.

Apr 24, 2015
@Noumenon You just spent several posts supporting what I have been saying from the start, namely that QM provides an extremely accurate and useful mathematical framework for predicting the results of measurements, but that trying to "look behind the curtain" and interpret what the mathematics happens *before* measurements are made inevitably leads to physically nonsensical results. Bell's work on foundational issues established that any mathematical theory that reproduces the observations of QM must give up EITHER reality or locality. As is clear from your posts, the Copenhagen Interpretation gives up reality .. that's why you can't talk about the independent existence of the wave function or quantum states in a physically meaningful way. The deBroglie Bohm interpretation gives up locality, but deals with particle and wave entities that are explicitly postulated to have independent reality; "looking behind the curtain" still gives nonsensical results in dBB, however.

Apr 24, 2015
If by objecting to my statement, you are stating that there is 'particle property' or 'wave property' existent Independently Of Observation [pure metaphysics by definition, btw], then the onus is on you to prove that absurdity, not me.
You misinterpreted my post .. I didn't say anything about what could be known *prior* to measurements being made. I just asked you to prove those properties definitely *DON'T* exist prior to measurement. The entire question of whether they exist or not is "metaphysical" in QM ... the various interpretations of QM provide different mathematical methods for describing unmeasured quantum systems, but we have no evidence that any of that is actually "true"; we just know that it lets us correctly predict the results of experimental measurements. CI postulates that wave and particle properties don't exist prior measurement, while dBB postulates explicit reality of both the wave and the particle, but both agree about what can be measured.

Apr 24, 2015
I agree with your former post entirely.

If by objecting to my statement, you are stating that there is 'particle property' or 'wave property' existent Independently Of Observation [pure metaphysics by definition, btw], then the onus is on you to prove that absurdity, not me.
You misinterpreted my post .. I didn't say anything about what could be known *prior* to measurements being made. I just asked you to prove those properties definitely *DON'T* exist prior to measurement. The entire question of whether they exist or not is "metaphysical" in QM.


Then why are you asking me to prove they don't exist? You objected to Intuition's statement that 'the observer creates the property',.... to me the implication of objecting to that (as quoted) is to imply those properties exist as independent 'things'. By my stating they're created in the act of observation, given the experimental design,... I'm rejecting that [meta-physical] implication.

Apr 24, 2015
Water_Prophet appears deluded yet AGAIN with this bizarre claim
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.
http://hyperphysi...act.html
No.
Your link shows that whilst the sun's activity reduces heat content still goes up as well as atmospheric temperatures.
http://images.rem...ies.html

What is Water_Prophet taking - its badly affecting his cognition, logic & maths - blimey !

Water_Prophet has previously been shown this link yet CANNOT seem to understand it, it shows an effective zoom in on Water_Prophet's own link:-
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

How is it Water_Prophet STILL cannot confirm ANY of his claims, especially that of CO2's LOW radiative forcing & despite Water_Prophet's claim of "4 technical degrees" including "Physical Chemistry just cannot respond intelligently to DarkLordKelvin's questions ?

Apr 24, 2015
I agree with your former post entirely.
Perhaps, but I am not sure you completely understand it's implications. Otherwise you would understand that the reason I asked you to *prove* your statement that wave-like and particle-like properties DEFINITELY don't exist prior to measurement, is because it is impossible to do so.

You seem to be an adherent of the CI, so you claim those properties don't exist prior to measurement; an adherent of dBB would disagree categorically, but neither of you could *prove* it one way or the other, because in both cases those aspects of the theory are postulated to be "true" right from the start. Thus you might disagree about the "truth" of your claim that particle- and wave-like properties are created by/during the act of measurement, yet you would NOT disagree about the predicted results of those measurements. That is why I have characterized your claims (and Intuition's) with regard to these aspects of QM as "interpretational".

Apr 24, 2015
An interesting side-line to this discussion is that, while we say that whether or not a quantum system displays "wave-like" or "particle-like" properties depends on how we measure it, the real situation is actually more complicated than that. For one thing, at least within the context of the double-slit experiment, a SINGLE measurement on a quantum system can only ever measure particle-like properties (i.e. a 'spot' on a screen). We then use an ensemble of measurements of (supposedly) identical quantum states to INFER their wave-like character (i.e. the interference pattern built up from many individual 'spot' measurements). We say that the interaction of each individual quantum state with the double-slit "measured" the wave-like character, but there seems to be a fundamental difference between that kind of "measurement", and the measurement of particle-like character from the interaction of each individual quantum-state with the particle detector.

Apr 24, 2015
Intuition claims
.. my point is that it shows just how little we actually know
Thats obviously a subjective (& immensely -ve) arbitrary view, the objective side of which is Evidentiary Eg. we can launch spacecraft, satellites, predict & manage very well the predictions of counter-intuitive effects such as General & Special Relativity (GPS) locally & astronomically. Also obviously Science is Asymptotic.

Other than Science, that has got us here & in SHORT time of ~500 yrs, what else ANYWHERE & is that 'something else' able to be queried directly so we receive anything substantive - ever ?

Intuition claims
From Newtonian physics to Relativity to QM
Very reliable for scales at each historical period :-)

Intuition claims
Scientists today ignorantly and arrogantly believe they have all the answers..
No.
All "true" scientists don't, you are easily affected by idiots !

Intuition, get a good education in Physics, then you will be immune to all mere claims !

Apr 24, 2015
Kelvin
. . . there is a level at which we are not allowed to "look behind the curtain."


Exactly! It's laughable how overconfident you are when it boils down to what you say above, you are not allowed to "look behind the curtain". I'm rolling in my chair that you can't figure out such a thing, that your God, science, has reduced you to admitting that you can't look behind the curtain, or trying to explain how a cat can oscillate back and forth in infintecimal instances from being alive and dead. Have you ever read the Bible, where the veil is torn after Jesus was crucified? Religion already knew over 2000 years ago what you are just beginning to figure out today. Imagine the parallel. You show yourself as an absolute fool. Einstein himself would not be so arrogant as you.

Apr 24, 2015
Kelvin
. . . there is a level at which we are not allowed to "look behind the curtain."


Exactly! It's laughable how overconfident you are when it boils down to what you say above, you are not allowed to "look behind the curtain". I'm rolling in my chair that you can't figure out such a thing, that your God, science, has reduced you to admitting that you can't look behind the curtain, or trying to explain how a cat can oscillate back and forth in infintecimal instances from being alive and dead. Have you ever read the Bible, where the veil is torn after Jesus was crucified? Religion already knew over 2000 years ago what you are just beginning to figure out today. Imagine the parallel. You show yourself as an absolute fool. Einstein himself would not be so arrogant as you.

Welcome to the troll bin. Goodbye.

Apr 24, 2015
Massen
Other than Science, that has got us here & in SHORT time of ~500 yrs, what else ANYWHERE & is that 'something else' able to be queried directly so we receive anything substantive - ever


Science is fine, but let's be honest, for all the good and convenience it has brought us it has also brought all the evil potentials we battle today. Let's be clear, it's people that bring evil but technology enabled by science magnifies their potential for good and evil exponentially. For example, nuclear energy could be amazing. Nuclear weapons could be catastrophic.

So, again, quite beating your chest there trooper.

Apr 24, 2015

Welcome to the troll bin. Goodbye.


Well, if you have no valid argument I guess that is what you must do, give up.

Apr 24, 2015
You seem to be an adherent of the CI, so you claim those properties don't exist prior to measurement; an adherent of dBB would disagree categorically, but neither of you could *prove* it one way or the other

One cannot prove a negative, and yes it's a matter of interpretation [not pejorative], ….. however the difference between the two (between positivism and realism) is on the one hand, …. if those properties can be accounted for in the mathematical structure and a-priori macro-concepts used in experimental design, then de-facto they are not independent entities,….. while contrarily, if one proposes a physical guiding wave, that is not observable, purely in order to 'save intuition' one is engaging in metaphysics.

IOW, the positivist approach makes use of epistemology, to delimit what can be known and to recognize concepts as an artificial synthesis,… and so, it is valid to state 'the underlying reality is neither waves nor particles' on that basis.

Apr 24, 2015
however the difference between the two (between positivism and realism) is on the one hand, if those properties can be accounted for in the mathematical structure and a-priori macro-concepts used in experimental design, then de-facto they are not independent entities, while contrarily, if one proposes a physical guiding wave, that is not observable, purely in order to 'save intuition' one is engaging in metaphysics.
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?
IOW, the positivist approach makes use of epistemology, to delimit what can be known and to recognize concepts as an artificial synthesis,… and so, it is valid to state 'the underlying reality is neither waves nor particles' on that basis.
It may be valid logically, within your prefered framework of postulates, but there is no experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can be used to test it, so it's not science.

Apr 24, 2015
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.

http://hyperphysi...act.html

Looks like quite a bit of the past global warming is due to increasing Sun activity.

Apr 24, 2015
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.

http://hyperphysi...act.html

Looks like quite a bit of the past global warming is due to increasing Sun activity.


Some of it may have been, but this is pretty old news; there is a whole camp of deniers who subscribe to the "it's just sunspots" theory to explain global climate change. A couple of things wrong with that: first, the apparent "excellent" agreement of the original "sunspot data" with global temperatures was bogus; second the correlation has gotten increasingly worse since about 1980 or so. The most conservative estimates I have seen from actual scientists attribute about half of the historical warming through 1950, and about a third of the warming from 1950-1980, to increased solar activity. Since then though, solar activity has waned, while the temp. anomaly has only gotten larger.

Apr 24, 2015
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?

False equivalency. The C.I. never postulated nor intended the wavefunction to be a physical wave, that is, they (Max Born) corrected Schroedinger on that,... while Heisenberg did not use wavefunctions.

Apr 24, 2015
IOW, the positivist approach makes use of epistemology, to delimit what can be known and to recognize concepts as an artificial synthesis,… and so, it is valid to state 'the underlying reality is neither waves nor particles' on that basis.

It may be valid logically, within your prefered framework of postulates, but there is no experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can be used to test it, so it's not science.


Factually incorrect. An experiment can be conducted that shows an electron is not a particle, and another that it is not a wave. Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis,.. and further, separability , counterfacuality, ...

Apr 24, 2015
IOW, the positivist approach makes use of epistemology, to delimit what can be known and to recognize concepts as an artificial synthesis,… and so, it is valid to state 'the underlying reality is neither waves nor particles' on that basis.
It may be valid logically, within your prefered framework of postulates, but there is no experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can be used to test it, so it's not science.
Factually incorrect. An experiment can be conducted that shows an electron is not a particle, and another that it is not a wave.
Pure sophistry .. those points were never at issue in this discussion .. I started off with them, for crying out loud. You are claiming something about "the underlying reality", not the results of measurements.
Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis
Those points are in the realm of epistemology, which is not uninteresting, but is not scientific either.

Apr 24, 2015
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?

False equivalency. The C.I. never postulated nor intended the wavefunction to be a physical wave, that is, they (Max Born) corrected Schroedinger on that,... while Heisenberg did not use wavefunctions.

You are conflating historical points with modern understanding of the various interpretations. My point is that it's all outside the realm of science, because there is no way to experimentally tell which interpretation is "correct" .. some people prefer CI, some prefer multi-worlds, some prefer dBB. Adherents of each particular interpretation show varying levels of fervor, all the way up to religious-style dogmatism, but that all seems to be based on their training, or perhaps personal psychology. There is some pedagogical utility in such philosophical discussions, but so far there is not much practical use for them.

Apr 24, 2015
Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis

Those points are in the realm of epistemology, which is not uninteresting, but is not scientific either.


The Bell inequalities are scientific in every sense.

Apr 24, 2015
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?


False equivalency. The C.I. never postulated nor intended the wavefunction to be a physical wave, that is, they (Max Born) corrected Schroedinger on that,... while Heisenberg did not use wavefunctions.


You are conflating historical points with modern understanding of the various interpretations.

I'm answering your quoted charge. The C.I. never proposed the wavefunction, much less a physical one. The modern CI with decoherence, does not change that fact.

Apr 24, 2015
My point is that it's all outside the realm of science, because there is no way to experimentally tell which interpretation is "correct"


While, I acknowledged above that we are speaking of interpretation, however, whether one has a positivist approach or a realist approach has impact on science,... as anyone can see from even a cursory glance at its history. Furthermore experimental results have impact on the tenability of Realism (to increasingly negative effect) vs Positivism, .... pov that guide in development of science.

Apr 24, 2015
Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis

Those points are in the realm of epistemology, which is not uninteresting, but is not scientific either.


The Bell inequalities are scientific in every sense.

I neither claimed, nor implied, that they weren't. It was your metaphysical claim that the upshot of Bell's Theorem is that locality is somehow an artificial construct that I characterized as epistemology. Bell's theorem allows for locality in Q.M. interpretations (the CI is a local theory, after all). Bell's theorem also allows for realism (counterfactual definiteness) in Q.M. interpretations. Bell's theorem just says that valid interpretations of Q.M. cannot have BOTH counterfactual definiteness and locality; CI eschews the former, dBB the latter. So why would you single out locality as being "artificial"?

Apr 24, 2015
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?
False equivalency. The C.I. never postulated nor intended the wavefunction to be a physical wave, that is, they (Max Born) corrected Schroedinger on that,... while Heisenberg did not use wavefunctions.
You are conflating historical points with modern understanding of the various interpretations
I'm answering your quoted charge. The C.I. never proposed the wavefunction, much less a physical one. The modern CI with decoherence, does not change that fact.
The first postulate of modern CI is typically taken to be that the wave function provides a complete accounting of everything that can be measured about a quantum system. In advanced courses, that is often rephrased in terms of a Hilbert space vector, but the upshot is the same; CI *postulates* that quantum states are mathematical abstractions.

Apr 25, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.
http://hyperphysi...act.html

Looks like quite a bit of the past global warming is due to increasing Sun activity.
Water_Prophet has been told often enough and long before he claimed to put me on 'ignore' as I reminded Water_Prophet he failed to qualify any of his claims

Water_Prophet should KNOW from his claimed uni studies "..correlation is NOT proof of causation.."

One wonders just what Water_Prophet is doing here, especially so as he stated "..I don't read citations", Water_Prophet should know this is NOT legal exercise eg Judge Judy, its a Scientific process to converge on key essential truths and especially those with substantive evidentiary basis.

Water_Prophet still hasnt proven ANY of his claims, ie CO2's LOW radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2

Apr 25, 2015
Water_Prophet appears deluded yet AGAIN with this bizarre claim
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.
http://hyperphysi...act.html

How is it Water_Prophet STILL cannot confirm ANY of his claims, especially that of CO2's LOW radiative forcing & despite Water_Prophet's claim of "4 technical degrees" including "Physical Chemistry just cannot respond intelligently to DarkLordKelvin's questions ?


patience the wormies controls him fiercly, like the spathi race in star control, he's saying dumb and mindless things because his scared, we try to comfort him in mental school, but everytime he looks down to write his name on a paper he sees his fingers reminding him of his silkworm masters punishing him.
its a tough case

Apr 25, 2015
So I promised to look up the Sun's correlation to temperature. Looks like quite a bit of increase can be attributed to it.

http://hyperphysi...act.html

Looks like ....


Some of it may have been, but this is pretty old news; there is a whole camp of deniers who subscribe to the "it's just sunspots" theory to explain global climate change.


But he feels safe under its worm slave masters, subscribing to this dumb thread makes him feel at home and loved by his fellow wormpuppets, it's going to take time to make him feel safe in order to understand real science.(and good luck to the mentors willing to sacrifice their sanity to try and get some sort of progress) I on the other hand will keep laughing and put shine on his nose for his dumb contributions, it's just so much fun seeing his political and greedy oil bosses humiliate themselves each time :D

Apr 25, 2015
c'mon monkey i said 200 posts, you're flaming out, keep 'em comin...

Apr 25, 2015
So basically, a) yes it's getting warmer, and b) it seems to be doing so at the middle-of-the-road rate, and the climate models collectively therefore are pretty accurate. Who knew? /sarcasm

Apr 25, 2015
So, we're having a chill day where I am today, so I did the application of an experiment.

So I assume the CO2 is 3-4x what is out doors. I cranked the heat to 72. I still "felt" cold, my body was getting rid of heat.

So, I put on the humidifier, and within moments, I am toasty, and need to turn down the heat.
I am definitely not losing heat to evaporation.

Apr 25, 2015
The Climate Fraud continues, irrefutable evidence confirms.

Apr 25, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So I assume the CO2 is 3-4x what is out doors. I cranked the heat to 72. I still "felt" cold, my body was getting rid of heat
Proof again Water_Prophet has zero understanding of "Experimental Methods" & difference between quantitative & qualitative !

Assumptions re key components without any suitable measurement do NOT an experiment make !

Water_Prophet claimed
So, I put on the humidifier, and within moments, I am toasty, and need to turn down the heat. I am definitely not losing heat to evaporation.
No, doubt it, if Water_Prophet actually had a humidity probe he would see his face, top of head etc is increasing the humidity from boundary layer - yet he has nil understanding of fluid dynamics to appreciate it !

There is obviously also radiative as everything radiates and all the time incessantly except at 0 K...

Water_Prophet desperately needs education in so many, especially
https://en.wikipe...eriments

Apr 25, 2015
antigoracle with his usual idiocy, caught so many times either making things up or searching for a political bent or obfuscating & oversimplifying earnest research but FAILS with this utterance
The Climate Fraud continues, irrefutable evidence confirms
What pray tell is this claim or 'irrefutable evidence' ?

Why did antigoracle not think to offer the link or cannot put in his last post, he had plenty of room ?

This is the pattern of the bulk of uneducated deniers, they made stupid claims trying to leave posts which make statements and hope they re not challenged. The good thing is there aren't many and their effect is declining :-)

antigoracle either put up your evidence or be confirmed as a liar, cheat & disingenuous childish flake ?

Apr 25, 2015
Reality, er I mean, empirical data is so less entertaining than the models. Bring back dread. And fear. And alarm!

Apr 25, 2015
Eddy, the models seem to be working fine, according to this article. Their median projection agrees well with the empirical data.

Total reading comprehension FAIL.

How do you take a shower without drowning?

Apr 25, 2015
Can we please have deniers who can at least count, and read an article with 20% reading comprehension? Getting tired of the complete idiots who failed third grade.

Apr 26, 2015
That the climate models average out variation, has noise, is known and been suggested as a vital area for recent research, as far as I know.

[It is hard to keep up with all the progress. Now the new NASA astrobiology NExSS effort will use these models to model habitability. Awesome!]

So this is likely a part of that. The next IPCC, where these kind of efforts will be statistically weighted if they have stood up, will be interesting if they can indeed narrow the likely outcome. If the low warming outcomes disappear, it will mean that action becomes so much more vital!

I think they overstate their results on the recent surface hiatus. First because the heat is known to have gone into the oceans (but possibly their data accounts for that surface/water difference). Second because while it makes a middle of the road scenario more likely it is likely really iffy to predict exclusion of other scenarios with low uncertainty based on just one variation.

Apr 26, 2015
Mike Massen: "This is the pattern of the bulk of uneducated deniers, they made stupid claims trying to leave posts which make statements and hope they re not challenged. The good thing is there aren't many and their effect is declining :-)"

Nice observation! (Well, anecdote, but I am sure we can scare up some data on the waning anti-science efforts.)

Apr 26, 2015
Out of the 1st 28 comments:
12 by believers, 16 by non-believers
Personal insults by believers: 7 (58%)
Personal insults by non-believers: 0 (0%)

Apr 26, 2015
Out of the 1st 28 comments:
12 by believers, 16 by non-believers
Personal insults by believers: 7 (58%)
Personal insults by non-believers: 0 (0%)

-------------------------------------
THANK YOU

Apr 26, 2015
PsycheOne claims
..of the 1st 28 comments
12 by believers, 16 by non-believers
Personal insults by believers: 7 (58%)
Personal insults by non-believers: 0 (0%)
Its NOT about belief. What is the metric on any of these, such as "balance of probability" re the Physics ?

How many make uneducated stupid (yes stupid because they have been here long enough to know better) claims ?
How many cannot prove/qualify their claims ?
How many base their (stupid, see above) claims on Physics ?
How many test the patience of those know Physics ?
How many repeat idle propaganda ?
How many address propaganda with Physics ?
How many obfuscate Science to mislead
How many attack the poster & not address Physics ?
How many can count ?

How many understand "Statistical Methods" & psychology to properly craft a survey ?
https://en.wikipe...hodology

AND
How many go to the trouble to educate by offering links to pin down the issue & address naivete ?

*grin*

Apr 26, 2015
So, you are ok with CI postulating a non-observable "wavefunction", but dBB is "metaphysical" for postulating a non-observable "guiding wave"?
False equivalency. The C.I. never postulated nor intended the wavefunction to be a physical wave, …
You are conflating historical points with modern understanding of the various interpretations
I'm answering your quoted charge. The C.I. never proposed the wavefunction, much less a physical one.
[….] In advanced courses, that is often rephrased in terms of a Hilbert space vector, but the upshot is the same; CI *postulates* that quantum states are mathematical abstractions.

That's correct, sooooooo, in C.I. quantum states, wavefunctions, are not intended to be physical, whilst the 'guiding wave' is proposed as an unobservable physical wave, ….metaphysics, by definition, in the latter case, not in the former, which is why I'm ok with the one and not the other to answer your question.

Apr 26, 2015
An experiment can be conducted that shows an electron is not a particle, and another that it is not a wave. Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis,.. and further, separability , counterfacuality,

Those points are in the realm of epistemology, which is not uninteresting, but is not scientific either.

The Bell inequalities are scientific in every sense.

I neither claimed, nor implied, that they weren't. It was your metaphysical claim that the upshot of Bell's Theorem is that locality is somehow an artificial construct that I characterized as epistemology.

You miss be point, if those classical concepts were valid at the quantum scale, they would both be valid at the same time, not ruled out and dependent upon the experimental arrangement... and Epistemology is not metaphysics….

Apr 26, 2015
An experiment can be conducted that shows an electron is not a particle, and another that it is not a wave. Further, the Bell inequalities, quite independently of theory, exposes Locality as an artificial synthesis,.. and further, separability , counterfacuality
[…....]

Bell's theorem just says that valid interpretations of Q.M. cannot have BOTH counterfactual definiteness and locality; [..] So why would you single out locality as being "artificial"?

I did not single it out, I mentioned counterfacuality as well. Since I had stated that 'in one experiment an electron can be shown to be a wave and in another an electron can be shown to be a particle',… it holds for, Locality and counterfacuality,… which is the salient point ..…. that such concepts are shown to be Dependent upon the experimental arrangement,… and so QM cannot be of Independent Reality [realism] but rather is of observer experience [positivism].

Apr 26, 2015

If one interpretation maintains local realism, then it must reject counterfactual definiteness and with it the notion of properties existing independently of measurements. Yet, if another interpretation maintains counterfactual definiteness [an epistemological property but yet an important element in physics], then it must reject local realism and with it our common sense of causality. In either case,….

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[ - Bernard d'Espagnat

"Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists "out there" independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a "participatory universe". - John Wheeler

Apr 26, 2015
"He was mean so he's wrong?"

Really?

Really?

This is the point where anybody who has a clue starts laughing. "He said something that's not correct so he's wrong" is what most intelligent people would accept as evidence. "He's mean so he's wrong" is a logical fallacy: a non-sequitur.

Apr 26, 2015
If one interpretation maintains local realism
Full stop, that is precisely what Bell's Theorem shows a valid QM interpretation CANNOT show ... I will assume you meant "locality"
then it must reject counterfactual definiteness and with it the notion of properties existing independently of measurements. Yet, if another interpretation maintains counterfactual definiteness [an epistemological property but yet an important element in physics], then it must reject [locality] and with it our common sense of causality. In either case ... [insert metaphysical quotations from prominent physicists]
This is where I see a certain arrogance reflected .. it seems that you, and the physicists you quoted, are assuming that QM is a complete theory, and there is nothing left to learn. That's of course your prerogative, but you should recognize that it's based on philosophy, and not physics. Nothing that can be measured suggests positivism is any more valid than realism. [ctd]

Apr 26, 2015


Out of the 1st 28 comments:
12 by believers, 16 by non-believers
Personal insults by believers: 7 (58%)
Personal insults by non-believers: 0 (0%)


Out of these "non-believers", how many have been here many times over? (and in some cases) even many years and the said "believers" have addressed them curteously with science, in answer to their ignorance?
How many of said "believers" are saints? and are immune to repeated myths/lies and illogic?

Also science is not a matter of "belief". hence it is the "non-believers" who hold the belief. "Believers" have evidence .... it's called science.

Apr 26, 2015
Also science is not a matter of "belief". hence it is the "non-believers" who hold the belief. "Believers" have evidence .... it's called science.
(applause)

There should be a rating higher than 5 for really good points like this.

Apr 26, 2015
@Noumenon ... pretty much everything in your last round of posts boils down to your particular preference for positivism and CI over realism and dBB. Thus it's really just philosophy, and not physics. I could find quite a number of well-established physicists who would argue just as passionately that realism and the dBB are on firmer ground than positivism, and that the "fuzziness" inherent in the CI is at odds with "common sense". I don't really have a dog in this fight, other that to make sure it gets properly acknowledged that all discussions about the nature of quantum systems prior to measurement are metaphysical by their very nature. The one point that I think the realists have going for them is that all *single* measurements of independent quantum states reveal them to be particles; wave-like behavior must be inferred from ensembles of measurements. Thus one might question the equal weighting of particle-like and wave-like characteristics attributed to Q.M. states in CI.

Apr 26, 2015
If one interpretation maintains local realism
Full stop, that is precisely what Bell's Theorem shows a valid QM interpretation CANNOT show ... I will assume you meant "locality"
Actually, Bell's Theorem says that EITHER local realism OR locality must be false. And tests of it confirm the theorem. No QM interpretation can distinguish between them.

Noum is stuck on this point. I unfortunately stopped posting at a point when Noum had made an assertion that could not be established, due to personal matters IRL. Noum has been trying to make hay of that for quite some time.

Locality: the assertion that local causes have local effects, i.e. that no influence can propagate faster than light.

Local realism: the assertion that even though some parameters have values that are indeterminate due to Heisenberg uncertainty, those parameters nevertheless have real values.

My position is that local realism is false, but it's only an opinion.

Apr 26, 2015
Good examples of interpretations of QM that assert local realism are Jack Cramer's Transactional Interpretation, and the Bohm interpretations.

Good examples of interpretations of QM that assert locality are Copenhagen and its derivatives, and Consistent Histories.

Each of these types of interpretations require assertion of contrafactual definiteness but in different ways. For example, TI and Bohm assert influences that are FTL and/or violate causality; Copenhagen and CH assert that parameters that are Heisenberg uncertain have no definite value.

I know of a paper that asserts time reversal; it's been largely ignored, but it's a consistent interpretation of QM nevertheless. I might go find it (if it's still up on the 'Net) if I'm given sufficient motivation.

Apr 26, 2015
Thus it's really just philosophy, and not physics.
I agree, and I also assert that any attempt to differentiate between locality and local realism is philosophy and not physics. Bell proved that. And his proof has been tested in the real world and verified. There are Bell test experiments that have verified it to ridiculous levels of certainty, like greater than 30σ.

Apr 26, 2015
Worth mentioning that my favored interpretation is Consistent Histories. OTOH, I also like the Transactional Interpretation, which is based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Apr 26, 2015
If one interpretation maintains local realism
Full stop, that is precisely what Bell's Theorem shows a valid QM interpretation CANNOT show ... I will assume you meant "locality"
Actually, Bell's Theorem says that EITHER local realism OR locality must be false.
No, Bell's theorem showed categorically that no theory that maintained local realism can possibly reproduce the predictions of QM (which are fully consistent with experiment so far). Bell's theorem was the death knell for all theories based on local hidden variables. Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory, but it is explicitly non-local, and thus consistent with Bell's theorem.

From the rest of your posts, you seem to have "local realism" confused with "counterfactual definiteness" (often called just "realism"). That is the idea that all of the measurable properties of quantum states exist independent of measurement. dBB builds CD in explicitly; CI does not have it.

Apr 26, 2015
I think we're disagreeing over the definition of "local realism," DLK. I might learn something from you; please define this terminology with more rigor.

Apr 26, 2015
I'll compare your claims with several books I have that talk about Bell's theorem; I suspect your definition of "local realism" is nonstandard. Or perhaps mine is; but Bell's theorem definitely gives two alternatives, of that I am certain. When defining an interpretation of QM, one can either deny that local causes have local effects (that is, superluminal influences exist), or that variables that are unmeasurable or unmeasured have real values (I think you're calling this "contrafactural definiteness") but not both. And one must deny one or the other.

This is my best understanding of the implications of Bell's theorem.

Apr 26, 2015
I think we're disagreeing over the definition of "local realism," DLK. I might learn something from you; please define this terminology with more rigor.
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables", to generate the results of any possible experiment. IOW, local realism is an expression of Einstein's famous objection that the universe cannot be "random" at the quantum scale. A locally realistic theory would hold that the "randomness" that is an inherent part of CI is just an illusion, and that electrons in a double slit experiment were predetermined to hit the spots that produce the interference pattern, guided there by some internal/intrinsic parameters that we have yet to learn.

Bell's theorem proved that any physical theory based on local realism could never reproduce the predictions of QM. David Mermin wrote a great article about it in Physics Today.

Apr 26, 2015

Bell's theorem proved that any physical theory based on local realism could never reproduce the predictions of QM. David Mermin wrote a great article about it in Physics Today


Here is a link to the article: http://maltoni.we...moon.pdf

Apr 26, 2015
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables", to generate the results of any possible experiment.
Hmmm, that's not my understanding. In fact, that's what I think "contrafactual definiteness" means. Looks like this was a misunderstanding of the terminology. To me, "local realism" means not some sort of "hidden variables," but actual reality of already known (not hidden) parameters, that are rendered indefinite by Heisenberg uncertainty, whereas "hidden variables" means some new, unknown (and potentially unknowable) internal degrees of freedom (parameters) that have unmeasurable values (not due to uncertainty, but due to their hidden nature).

contd

Apr 26, 2015
IOW, I don't think "hidden variable" means a variable whose value is hidden, but a variable whose existence is hidden. The existence of the variable itself is hidden, not just its value. Values can be uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty but their existence is real. The question is whether such variables have real values or are indeterminate until they are measured, as I see it.

Apr 26, 2015
Thus, "local realism" means that non-hidden variables have real values even though we can't measure them due to Heisenberg uncertainty, and this is paired with "non-locality," which means that such variables don't have values, but acquire them upon measurement and their value (or its complement, if they are required by conservation laws to be complementary) is transmitted superluminally to the entangled particle by an unknown mechanism (as in Bohm). And the difference between non-local-realism and non-locality cannot ever be determined.

What you seem to be proposing is that variables whose existence is known but whose value is uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty constitute "hidden variables," which is contrary to my understanding.

Apr 26, 2015
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables", to generate the results of any possible experiment.
Hmmm, that's not my understanding. In fact, that's what I think "contrafactual definiteness" means.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why not just look them up before posting? My definitions are the standard ones .. just google them. And read the Mermin article .. it really is excellent, and anyone discussing these issues should be familiar with it. You are of course free to use whatever definitions you like, but if you try have a conversation about interpretational issues in QM using "your" versions for "local realism", "counterfactual definiteness" and "hidden variables", there is going to be a lot of confusion because they are non-standard. Try telling Cramer that you think the TI is a "local realistic" theory and see what he says ;).

Apr 26, 2015
why not just look them up before posting
Because the definitions in Wikipedia are different from the definitions in my books. And my books are by particle physicists, and your assertion that they are "non-standard" seems pretty arrogant considering particle physicists who presumably know what they're talking about seem to disagree.

Apr 26, 2015
Quite frankly if my books say one thing and the Internet says another I tend to go with the books. Even Wikipedia is unreliable compared to a book written by a particle physicist who puts their name and stakes their reputation on it. And I'm quoting Brian Greene and Murry Gell-Mann.

I hate to ask this but I have to: did you write that Wikipedia article?

Apr 26, 2015
why not just look them up before posting
Because the definitions in Wikipedia are different from the definitions in my books.

Which books? Also, you can't just fob it off on "wikipedia" .. follow the linked references on wikipedia for those terms. I am not familiar with all of the QM pages, but most of the ones I have visited are quite exensively (and properly) referenced. I would be quite surprised if you could find any sort of reputable source that gave definitions that were meaningfully different from the ones that I have used here.

Apr 26, 2015
The Quark and the Jaguar by Murry Gell-Mann
The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

Let's start there.

Apr 26, 2015
And I'm quoting Brian Greene and Murry Gell-Mann.
I doubt that very sincerely. My suspicion is that you don't actually have the books in front of you, and are paraphrasing from memory, and that is where the errors are creeping in. If I am wrong, then please give the titles and page numbers where the definitions you are quoting appear. I probably have the same books that you do, or at least can get my hands on them easily, so I can see for myself.

Apr 26, 2015
You guys are over thinking this,... "Local Realism" just means a combination of conditions to be met,... locality, ....counterfacuality- that entities have objective values independent of measurement so that statements can be made of experiments not actually performed, ....and the no conspiracy condition,..... if the Bell inequalities rule out one, then they rule out "local realism".

DarkLords correction of my wording was a bit redundant.

Apr 26, 2015
I'm holding them both in my hand

Do I need to start looking stuff up here?

Are you going to answer my question about whether you modified the article in Wikipedia?

Apr 26, 2015
I'm looking up Bell's theorem in the index of The Fabric of the Cosmos right now. Do I need to continue this? If you're not going to respond I'll continue.

I don't make an assertion unless I have pretty good reason to do so. Apparently the adventures of the last several days haven't convinced you of this yet. That's a shame.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong- but I doubt it.

Apr 26, 2015
And he fades away. C'mon, DLK, you made an assertion and it's about to be checked against the assertions of two famous physicists in books they put their names on. Are you going to respond?

Apr 26, 2015
No, Bell's theorem showed categorically that no theory that maintained local realism can possibly reproduce the predictions of QM (which are fully consistent with experiment so far). Bell's theorem was the death knell for all theories based on local hidden variables. Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory, but it is explicitly non-local, and thus consistent with Bell's theorem.


Correct.

From the rest of your posts, you seem to have "local realism" confused with "counterfactual definiteness" (often called just "realism"). That is the idea that all of the measurable properties of quantum states exist independent of measurement. dBB builds CD in explicitly; CI does not have it.


You're both a bit confused; all the conditions, (mentioned in my previous post) have to be met for "local realism" to hold,... thats all it means. The Bell theorem refutes "local realism" for one of the reasons.


Apr 26, 2015
Quite frankly if my books say one thing and the Internet says another I tend to go with the books. Even Wikipedia is unreliable compared to a book written by a particle physicist who puts their name and stakes their reputation on it. And I'm quoting Brian Greene and Murry Gell-Mann.

I hate to ask this but I have to: did you write that Wikipedia article?

Good lord .. of course not! Furthermore, there are hundreds of other links to quantum pages all over the internet ... pick any one, follow it. Look it up in the Stanford online encyclopedia of science and philosophy (or whatever it's proper title is). As I said before, I don't think that you'll be able to find a single reference that has a meaningfully different definition than what I wrote.

Apr 26, 2015
Fabric of the Cosmos, pp 206:

[Bohm's] approach does not fall afoul of Bell's results, because... possessing definite properties forbidden by quantum uncertainty is *not* ruled out; only locality is ruled out, and Bohm's approach is *not* local.


This confirms my statement that variables that are uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty are NOT "hidden variables." You appear to have asserted otherwise. The Wikipedia article appears to assert the same thing you just did.

I got books with peoples' names on them, famous books by famous physicists. You got "teh Internets." Sorry, DLK, I'm going with the books.

Shall I continue?

Apr 26, 2015
You guys are over thinking this,... "Local Realism" just means a combination of conditions to be met,... locality, ....counterfacuality- that entities have objective values independent of measurement so that statements can be made of experiments not actually performed, ....and the no conspiracy condition,..... if the Bell inequalities rule out one, then they rule out "local realism".

DarkLords correction of my wording was a bit redundant.

It most certainly was not ... you conflated "locality" .. something allowed by Bell's Theorem, with "local realism", something that Bell's Theorem explicitly refuted. You also said:
If one interpretation maintains local realism, then it must reject counterfactual definiteness
which directly contradicts what you wrote above. Are you sure I am the one who is confused about this stuff?

Apr 26, 2015
Are you still doubting, DLK? I'm kinda eating dinner here while I page through these books, and it's kind of a hassle. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the conversation up.

And I didn't particularly appreciate you making up stories about whether I own these books or not. That wasn't very polite, and you know I don't like dealing with people who aren't polite and I tend to be pretty aggressive about it.

I don't think you know what "local realism" means. I think you're reading a bunch of idiots on the 'Net and ignoring the real physicists.

Apr 26, 2015
Fabric of the Cosmos, pp 206:

[Bohm's] approach does not fall afoul of Bell's results, because... possessing definite properties forbidden by quantum uncertainty is *not* ruled out; only locality is ruled out, and Bohm's approach is *not* local.


This confirms my statement that variables that are uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty are NOT "hidden variables." You appear to have asserted otherwise. The Wikipedia article appears to assert the same thing you just did.

Fine, but that was never at issue, and didn't contradict anything I wrote .. also, I said specifically that although Bohmian mechanics is a hidden-variables theory, it is explicitly non-local, and therefore allowed by Bell's Theorem.

I got books with peoples' names on them, famous books by famous physicists. You got "teh Internets." Sorry, DLK, I'm going with the books.

Shall I continue?
Only if you try to get it right next time.

Apr 26, 2015
that was never at issue
Yes, it was, you called me "wrong" for saying it. Shall I quote you?

You're really blowing it here.

Here's the quote:
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables"
No, it doesn't. Local realism states that parameters that are uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty have real values even though they cannot be measured.

Apr 26, 2015
Are you still doubting, DLK? I'm kinda eating dinner here while I page through these books, and it's kind of a hassle. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the conversation up.

Just find the definitions for "local realism", "counterfactual definiteness" and "hidden variables" that you claimed were given by those references. All you have done so far is (mis)interpret a comment about Bell's Theorem that was completely consistent with everything I have written about QM on this thread.

Apr 26, 2015
This is bullshit, DLK. Stop posing. You're about to really piss me off.

Apr 26, 2015
This is expected. The IPCC numbers are inflated on purpose. People don't act against moderate threats.

It looks like the standard trend in temperature since the little ice age...periods of punctuated warming with intermittent flat or slightly cooling temperatures between the punctuate rises.

Apr 26, 2015
that was never at issue
Yes, it was, you called me "wrong" for saying it. Shall I quote you?

You're really blowing it here.

Here's the quote:
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables"
No, it doesn't. Local realism states that parameters that are uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty have real values even though they cannot be measured.
No, that's counterfactual definiteness. Read the explanation of Bell's Theorem from the Stanford Encyclopaedia (http://plato.stan...eorem/), or read Mermin's article that I posted earlier ... or anything else. You are relying on your ability to properly interpret what is written in those other books, and you're not getting things correct.

Apr 26, 2015
If one interpretation maintains local realism, then it must reject counterfactual definiteness

which directly contradicts what you wrote above. Are you sure I am the one who is confused about this stuff?


You're correct,... I should have just said "locality" as you had originally corrected me.

"local realism" just means the combination of those conditions.

Apr 26, 2015
Sorry, not doing teh Internets, DLK. Going with the books, and that's a hassle and is going to take me a while, and you're putting me to it because you haven't read them. I'm going to crucify you for it. You asked for it, now you're gonna get it.

Apr 26, 2015
Sorry, not doing teh Internets, DLK. Going with the books, and that's a hassle and is going to take me a while, and you're putting me to it because you haven't read them.
I most certainly have read them .. ages ago. My understanding of this stuff is not casual ... I am an expert in it, as you should have been able to discern from my posts if you had paid attention to them. I stand by everything I have written .. I will not say for sure it is error-free, but if there do happen to be any errors in there, I will certainly own up to them. I don't understand the point of getting aggressive with another poster on an internet forum ... what is to be gained from that? All I care about is getting the science right .. I don't have the time or energy for politics or personal crap.

Apr 26, 2015
What really pisses me off is that the Wikipedia article USED TO agree with Gell-Mann and Greene, and now it doesn't. Either someone's changed the definitions or there's mass confusion, which wouldn't surprise me since this stuff is logically convoluted. But being told I'm "wrong" is pretty much not OK.

Apr 26, 2015
This Phys.Org Link confirms that "local realism" is the combination of the conditions that I listed above,... not specifically one of them.

Apr 26, 2015
It wasn't ages ago for me, I've re-read them both multiple times.

As far as why it's worth it, I'm tired of having Internet "experts" make assertions on their own hook that disagree with the real literature and then start quoting articles by unknowns. Neither Wikipedia nor Stanford is a reliable source compared to real books by famous physicists.

And now I'm going to have to do hours of research because some Internet "expert" wants to prove how big their schlong is.

Apr 26, 2015
Local realism boils down to the notion that quantum particles are real "objects" that carry sufficient information recorded within themselves as "hidden variables"-DLK

No, it doesn't. Local realism states that parameters that are uncertain under Heisenberg uncertainty have real values even though they cannot be measured. DaSchnieb

No, that's counterfactual definiteness. - DLK

Yes that's counterfactual definiteness, but has nothing to do with the notion of hidden variables. LOL.

All three of us were wrong about "Local realism" at one point in this thread,.... likely because its not a specific condition but the totality of conditions.

Apr 26, 2015
What really pisses me off is that the Wikipedia article USED TO agree with Gell-Mann and Greene, and now it doesn't. Either someone's changed the definitions or there's mass confusion, which wouldn't surprise me since this stuff is logically convoluted.
Isn't there a third possibility? Isn't it possible that what is on Wiki STILL agrees with the authors of your books (who I cannot believe gave definitions that are meaningfully different from what I posted), but that your understanding of what they wrote has faded, so that what you think you remember isn't actually what they wrote?
But being told I'm "wrong" is pretty much not OK.
Even if you wrote something that actually is wrong? Stating that Bell's Theorem allow for locally realistic theories, as you did in your first post, is rather starkly wrong, since Bell's Theorem was what proved that local realism was incompatible with QM. How do you think I should have phrased my rebuttal?

Apr 26, 2015
I asserted that perhaps we disagreed on the definition of "local realism" and you stated that was not so.

Maybe you were wrong. Ever consider that?

Sxxt, I'm gonna have to re-read both books. This is gonna take a day or more. In order to deal with pedantry. >spits

Apr 26, 2015
It wasn't ages ago for me, I've re-read them both multiple times.

As far as why it's worth it, I'm tired of having Internet "experts" make assertions on their own hook that disagree with the real literature and then start quoting articles by unknowns. Neither Wikipedia nor Stanford is a reliable source compared to real books by famous physicists.
Yours are pop-science books ... the Stanford Encyclopedia is a valid *reference book*, accepted as a valid cited source. David Mermin is also a very famous physicist, and that article of his I linked is considered one of the definitive pedagogical works on Bell's Theorem. SoI think you need to re-evaluate which sources you consider to be reputable.
And now I'm going to have to do hours of research because some Internet "expert" wants to prove how big their schlong is.
Or it could be that you are tilting at windmills because you don't want to accept that your understanding of Bell's Theorem was mistaken. But why?

Apr 26, 2015
, I'm gonna have to re-read both books. This is gonna take a day or more. In order to deal with pedantry. >spits


Are you coming back, because that's what you told me Here, but then hide under your desk for four months, so I had to end the thread with a QED , :)

[j/k]

Apr 26, 2015
I asserted that perhaps we disagreed on the definition of "local realism" and you stated that was not so.
Well, you came in and "corrected" my post, and I said that your definition of LR was incorrect ... there's not a lot of wiggle room for "disagreement" there, considering that any description of Bell's Theorem that you can find will assert that it proved local realism was incompatible with QM. Since you were saying the opposite of that, pretty much only one of us could be correct.
Maybe you were wrong. Ever consider that?
Immediately ... in fact I double checked that I hadn't made a mistake in my post before I commented again.
Sxxt, I'm gonna have to re-read both books. This is gonna take a day or more. In order to deal with pedantry. >spits
Once again, you jumped in and "corrected" something I had written, interjecting your own (mis)understanding into what I had intended as clarifying commentary. So who is really engaging in pedantry here?

Apr 26, 2015
...you should recognize that it's based on philosophy, and not physics. - DLK


It's based on 'philosophy of physics', an active field pursued by physicists,.... which is what interpretations of QM are,... but I suspect you now know that given that you have referenced The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Apr 26, 2015
OK, I found a problem. I've confounded what you're calling local realism with what I call local reality; what I call local reality is what you call contrafactual definiteness. This has distorted the conversation. I will withdraw my assertion that Bell requires local realism OR nonlocality, in favor of the assertion that Bell requires contrafactual definiteness (adopting your terminology) OR nonlocality. Because of this I feel strongly that "contrafactual definiteness" is a misnomer; it's not contrafactual at all. It's simply the assertion that variables that are not measurable under uncertainty have definite values. Nevertheless, this appears to be the standard terminology, as you assert, so I'll try to stick to it. And I'll try to avoid confounding contrafactual definiteness with local realism.

contd

Apr 26, 2015
...you should recognize that it's based on philosophy, and not physics. - DLK


It's based on 'philosophy of physics', an active field pursued by physicists,.... which is what interpretations of QM are,... but I suspect you now know that given that you referenced The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I do know that .. and I enjoy reading "foundations of physics" articles about interpretational issues. As I said, they have great pedagogical value (that was intended only as a descriptive characterization .. not pejorative at all). However, I was trained as an experimentalist, and although I have considerable experience with certain kinds of QM theory as well, I am really an Instrumentalist at heart .. although I try to be an "enlightened" one .. i.e. not just "shut up and calculate". Anyway, that's why I feel it is so important to draw a clear separation between what is measurable, and what is hypothesized about things that are "behind the scenes".

Apr 26, 2015
My understanding of Bell's theorem, then, is that it says either contrafactual definiteness or locality must be violated. Using Bohm's modification of Bell, then, either a photon has definite spin on more than one axis but we can only measure it on one, and when we do the spin on other axes is randomized, or some non-local influence (Bohm's pilot waves for example, or the Copenhagen collapse, or TI/Wheeler-Feynman backward causality) transmits the result of the measurement pseudo-instantaneously (depending on the relativity of simultaneity) to the other photon of the entangled pair, resulting in correlation.

To put it another way, either they were always correlated but we couldn't measure it, or they correlate non-locally.

Please save me from a huge research project by reviewing this carefully, and by looking back over this thread, because you may have missed some updates to posts that had not yet expired and I modified while you were responding.

Thanks in advance.

Apr 26, 2015
I disagree strongly with Noum's POV because of the Sokal affair and Derridism. OTOH, Noum may have disavowed Derridist deconstructionism, in which case I'd be more motivated to listen.

BTW, DLK, I'll take you at your word you didn't modify the Wikipedia article. I suspect that was an artifact of my confusion of local realism and local reality.

Apr 26, 2015
My understanding of Bell's theorem, then, is that it says either contrafactual definiteness or locality must be violated


Which means that "local realism" IS violated.

Apr 26, 2015
Which means that "local realism" IS violated.
Yes. As I understand the term "local realism" now.

The main point being, there is not only one interpretation of Bell's theorem, but two. And which one is correct cannot ever be determined (at least as QM is currently formulated).

Apr 26, 2015
I disagree strongly with Noum's POV because of the Sokal affair and Derridism. OTOH, Noum may have disavowed Derridist deconstructionism, in which case I'd be more motivated to listen.


What pov are you referring to??

That some philosophers were exposed as frauds, does not render the entire branch of philosophy a fraud. In any case, I have little interest in philosophy generally, except that it relates to physics, logic, epistemology...

I had told you I was not familiar with 'Derridist deconstructionism',... looked it up, said the guy was a nut-job, if I recall.

Apr 26, 2015
I should note that when I coined the term "local reality" there was no such terminology as "contrafactual definiteness" in the literature; the term is not used in either The Fabric of the Cosmos or The Quark and the Jaguar. And I still object to it since it cannot be known whether it is "contrafactual" or not.

as it relates to physics, logic, epistemology
LOL, seems like most of philosophy to me other than ethics. But diff'rent strokes.

Apr 26, 2015
My understanding of Bell's theorem, then, is that it says either contrafactual definiteness or locality must be violated
That's correct (but I think previously you may have said nonlocality when you mean locality)
Using Bohm's modification of Bell, then, either a photon has definite spin on more than one axis but we can only measure it on one
No, that sounds like a local hidden variable
or some non-local influence (Bohm's pilot waves for example, or the Copenhagen collapse, or TI/Wheeler-Feynman backward causality) transmits the result of the measurement pseudo-instantaneously (depending on the relativity of simultaneity) to the other photon of the entangled pair, resulting in correlation.
The rest seems ok
To put it another way, either they were always correlated but we couldn't measure it, or they correlate non-locally.
I don't think so ..I think it's only the second option. The first sounds dangerously close (if not identical) to local realism. [ctd]

Apr 26, 2015
My understanding of Bell's theorem, then, is that it says either contrafactual definiteness or locality must be violated.
That's correct (although I think in your previous post you said non locality when you mean locality).
I might have. Mea maxima culpa.

Damn, I might get out of this huge research project after all. Thanks for this.

Using Bohm's modification of Bell, then, either a photon has definite spin on more than one axis but we can only measure it on one, and when we do the spin on other axes is randomized, or some non-local influence (Bohm's pilot waves for example, or the Copenhagen collapse, or TI/Wheeler-Feynman backward causality) transmits the result of the measurement pseudo-instantaneously (depending on the relativity of simultaneity) to the other photon of the entangled pair, resulting in correlation.
That all seems ok.
Excellent. We're making major progress. This is what I thought I was saying.

contd

Apr 26, 2015
To put it another way, either they were always correlated but we couldn't measure it, or they correlate non-locally.
I don't think so ..I think it's only the second option. The first sounds dangerously close (if not identical) to local realism.
No, not as you've defined local realism. They have values of the Heisenberg uncertain parameters, but if we try to measure them we randomize the Heisenberg complementary values and disentangle them. There is therefore no local realism involved. Yet, when we measure them on different axes remotely, the measured values are correlated as per Bell.

(after your edit)

Using Bohm's modification of Bell, then, either a photon has definite spin on more than one axis but we can only measure it on one
No, that sounds like a local hidden variable
Nope. Definitely not. Unhidden parameters that are indeterminate under uncertainty are not hidden variables, per the previous quote from Greene.

Apr 26, 2015
[ctd]Just to clarify. If a theory rejects counterfactual definiteness (CD), then it holds that the measured properties don't even exist until the moment of measurement .. this is the "standard" (i.e. Copehagen) interpretation. Therefore there is no issue with locality when measuring entangled states ... the first measurement made anywhere "throws" the whole quantum system into a single one of the possible "result" states. Since there is no way to send information FTL using such a mechanism, it does not violate SR.

If a theory rejects locality (like Bohemian mechanics), then it allows for a quantum state to respond "instantaneously" to events having a space-like separation. Thus when measuring entangled quantum states, the pilot-wave for the initial state becomes spatially entangled with the measurement apparatus, and since it interacts non-locally, the entire system responds at the moment a measurement is made. (I am honestly less sure how this is consistent with SR.)

Apr 26, 2015
LOL, we've gotten "contrafactual definiteness" backwards, too. OK, so local reality (NOT local realism!) is contra-contrafactual definiteness. Should we call it "definiteness?"

And then say that Bell's theorem either implies definiteness or non-locality?

Apr 26, 2015
To put it another way, either they were always correlated but we couldn't measure it, or they correlate non-locally.
I don't think so ..I think it's only the second option. The first sounds dangerously close (if not identical) to local realism.
No, not as you've defined local realism. They have values of the Heisenberg uncertain parameters, but if we try to measure them we randomize the Heisenberg complementary values and disentangle them. There is therefore no local realism involved. Yet, when we measure them on different axes remotely, the measured values are correlated as per Bell.
Hmm .. it seems like you are conflating a couple of different types of entanglement (Stern-Gerlach and EPR), but as long as you have the caveat that the special "hidden variables" you describe can't affect measurement results, everything should be ok re: Bell. I suspect you would have problems developing an otherwise consistent theory based on those assumptions though.

Apr 26, 2015
Let me point out that ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires non-local interaction if entangled members are non-local. This is part of why this is so logically confusing.

Apr 26, 2015
Hmm .. it seems like you are conflating a couple of different types of entanglement (Stern-Gerlach and EPR), but as long as you have the caveat that the special "hidden variables" you describe can't affect measurement results, everything should be ok re: Bell. I suspect you would have problems developing a consistent theory based on those assumptions though.
A "hidden variable" is a variable whose *entire existence*, not just its value, is hidden; my quote from Greene confirms this, unless I've misinterpreted it. A variable whose *value* is hidden by uncertainty is not a "hidden variable" under Bell.

Bohm avoided this by assigning the hidden variables to the "pilot wave" instead of the particle, according to my reading of Greene (material after my quote that I have not quoted here).

Apr 27, 2015
Let me point out that ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires non-local interaction if entangled members are non-local.
No, it doesn't. It just requires that wave function "collapse" is instantaneous .. as I pointed out, this doesn't violate SR (which is what initially concerned Einstein) because no information is transferred FTL. This is the so-called "measurement problem" with CI.

The reason this stuff seems confusing is because people generally try to force more meaning into the CI than is actually there. The CI is quite successful at predicting mathematically what the results of measurements will be, but it doesn't give any physically relevant information about HOW those results come about. It's extremely odd that this could ever work as well as it apparently does, and that's the reason Feynman (and others) said things like, "Anyone who isn't shocked by QM hasn't properly understood it".

Apr 27, 2015
BTW, this implicit non-locality of Copenhagen-with-real-collapse was, if I understand correctly, the motivation behind the development of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Apr 27, 2015
Let me point out that ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires non-local interaction if entangled members are non-local.
No, it doesn't. It just requires that wave function "collapse" is instantaneous .. as I pointed out, this doesn't violate SR (which is what initially concerned Einstein) because no information is transferred FTL.
But it requires either definiteness or non-locality; otherwise, how can the values be correlated? Are you asserting then that Copenhagen (with real collapse) is local? As you say (and I didn't quote), this is the measurement problem-- and Bell says it requires either definiteness or non-local interaction. Einstein was right, but he forgot to account for the possibility of definiteness- and although he didn't believe in non-locality, it's one of the two solutions to the paradox that Bell's theorem poses.

contd

Apr 27, 2015
"Bell's theorem was later generalized to stochastic theories as well, and it was also realized that the theorem is not so much about hidden variables, as about the outcomes of measurements that could have been taken instead of the one actually taken. Existence of these variables is called the assumption of realism, or the assumption of counterfactual definiteness."

--------------

The CI is quite successful at predicting mathematically what the results of measurements will be, but it doesn't give any physically relevant information about HOW those results come about. It's extremely odd that this could ever work as well as it apparently does, and that's the reason Feynman (and others) said things like, "Anyone who isn't shocked by QM hasn't properly understood it".


Yes, and I think Bohr's (the natural successor to I. Kant, according to A. Pais) epistemological arguments, justify the C.I., despite not "satisfying" the realist.

Apr 27, 2015
Sorry, DLK, I should have said, ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires EITHER non-local interaction OR definite values for unmeasurable parameters. My bad.

"Bell's theorem was later generalized to stochastic theories as well, and it was also realized that the theorem is not so much about hidden variables, as about the outcomes of measurements that could have been taken instead of the one actually taken. Existence of these variables is called the assumption of realism, or the assumption of counterfactual definiteness."
LOL, so my "definiteness" is "realism?"

Apr 27, 2015
I'll also point out that current entanglement experiments indicate that either definiteness (or as Noum would have it, realism) or non-locality is measurable and has been confirmed. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since we last talked, Noum. And you are now "definitely" (LOL) off my ignore list.

Popular science writers of course tend to lean toward non-locality since it's more "sexy," but we must never forget that definiteness/reality is equally likely under Bell.

Apr 27, 2015
A "hidden variable" is a variable whose *entire existence*, not just its value, is hidden; my quote from Greene confirms this, unless I've misinterpreted it. A variable whose *value* is hidden by uncertainty is not a "hidden variable" under Bell.
Ok, the seems like it is a semantic issue .. when you say "hidden by uncertainty", what you mean (in the context of the CI anyway) is "has an indeterminate value". That would contradict earlier where you said that these things had well-determined values that were somehow destroyed by the measurement; that is NOT consistent with the CI, where the spin projection along AT MOST a single axis can have a well-defined value. Measurement can switch which axis has the well-defined value (as in a multi-magnet Stern-Gerlach experiment), but only one well-defined projection ever exists at a time.

So, whether or not a particle with well-defined spins along more than one axis would have "hidden variables" is moot, since it contradicts QM.

Apr 27, 2015
"Bell's theorem was later generalized to stochastic theories as well, and it was also realized that the theorem is not so much about hidden variables, as about the outcomes of measurements that could have been taken instead of the one actually taken. Existence of these variables is called the assumption of realism, or the assumption of counterfactual definiteness."
LOL, so my "definiteness" is "realism?"

Yes, I said that way back .. counterfactual definiteness .. the idea that quantum states have given properties independent of whether or not they have been measured, is often called "realism".

Apr 27, 2015
A "hidden variable" is a variable whose *entire existence*, not just its value, is hidden; my quote from Greene confirms this, unless I've misinterpreted it. A variable whose *value* is hidden by uncertainty is not a "hidden variable" under Bell.
Ok, the seems like it is a semantic issue .. when you say "hidden by uncertainty", what you mean (in the context of the CI anyway) is "has an indeterminate value". That would contradict earlier where you said that these things had well-determined values that were somehow destroyed by the measurement; that is NOT consistent with the CI, where the spin projection along AT MOST a single axis can have a well-defined value. Measurement can switch which axis has the well-defined value (as in a multi-magnet Stern-Gerlach experiment), but only one well-defined projection ever exists at a time.
Hmmm, actually the three polarizers experiment shows pretty explicitly that measurement in one axis randomizes the values on other axes.

Apr 27, 2015
So, whether or not a particle with well-defined spins along more than one axis would have "hidden variables" is moot, since it contradicts QM.
No, it contradicts measurements-- but as long as no other axis is measured, it could still have a value (unless non-locality is invoked).

Remember that Bell shows that measurements on another axis of an entangled particle are still correlated with measurements on the first; the randomization doesn't occur until a measurement is made on a second axis.

Note I said "correlated."

Apr 27, 2015
Let me point out that ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires non-local interaction if entangled members are non-local.
No, it doesn't. It just requires that wave function "collapse" is instantaneous .. as I pointed out, this doesn't violate SR (which is what initially concerned Einstein) because no information is transferred FTL.
But it requires either definiteness or non-locality; otherwise, how can the values be correlated?
Because the correlated values are the only possible results according to the CI .. the entangled state is a superposition of the two possible anti-correlated results: 2^(-1/2)[(up)(down)+(down)(up)], thus a *local* measurement anywhere must result in the resolution of the entangled state into one of the two possible channels; nothing else is allowed.
Are you asserting then that Copenhagen (with real collapse) is local?
Well, it's defined to be a local theory, so, yes.

Apr 27, 2015
Let me point out that ""throwing" the whole quantum system into a single state" requires non-local interaction if entangled members are non-local.
No, it doesn't. It just requires that wave function "collapse" is instantaneous .. as I pointed out, this doesn't violate SR (which is what initially concerned Einstein) because no information is transferred FTL.
But it requires either definiteness or non-locality; otherwise, how can the values be correlated?
Because the correlated values are the only possible results according to the CI .. the entangled state is a superposition of the two possible anti-correlated results: 2^(-1/2)[(up)(down)+(down)(up)], thus a *local* measurement anywhere must result in the resolution of the entangled state into one of the two possible channels; nothing else is allowed.
I think you've ignored the correlation between Bell test measurements on different axes, which are still correlated.

contd

Apr 27, 2015
So, whether or not a particle with well-defined spins along more than one axis would have "hidden variables" is moot, since it contradicts QM.
No, it contradicts measurements-- but as long as no other axis is measured, it could still have a value (unless non-locality is invoked).
No .. I said it correctly. According to the CI, a given angular momentum variable (and spin is intrinsic angular momentum) in QM can have at most one well-defined projection at a time; that is the mathematical description of the pre-measurement situation. If you want a theory that allows for well-defined values along multiple axes, you'll have to develop it yourself.

Remember that Bell shows that measurements on another axis of an entangled particle are still correlated with measurements on the first; the randomization doesn't occur until a measurement is made on a second axis.
I don't know what you meant there, but what you *wrote* doesn't make sense.

Apr 27, 2015
Are you asserting then that Copenhagen (with real collapse) is local?
Well, it's defined to be a local theory, so, yes.
Well, hmmm, Bell says either realism (I'll adopt what appears to be the dominant terminology) or non-local interaction is required. I don't think strict Copenhagen distinguishes between them, though I think Copenhagen-with-real-collapse selects non-locality.

Apr 27, 2015
No .. I said it correctly. According to the CI, a given angular momentum variable (and spin is intrinsic angular momentum) in QM can have at most one well-defined projection at a time
I don't think that's a feature of Copenhagen, but of QM itself. And it's based on measurements. What we're talking about is what underlies the measurements; the underlying "reality," if you will, and I think Bell says that underlying reality EITHER has values for the Heisenberg uncertain spins, OR there is a non-local interaction that correlates the spins. Are we saying here that the math of QM selects for non-locality over realism?

Apr 27, 2015
I'll also point out that current entanglement experiments indicate that either definiteness (or as Noum would have it, realism) or non-locality is measurable and has been confirmed. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since we last talked, Noum. And you are now "definitely" (LOL) off my ignore list.

Popular science writers of course tend to lean toward non-locality since it's more "sexy," but we must never forget that definiteness/reality is equally likely under Bell.

You have confused this several times now, in several posts .... non-locality and what you are calling "definiteness" are both aspects of the same interpretations .. for example, Bohmian mechanics and the Transactional Interpretation. Standard QM is local and DOES NOT have contrafactual definiteness; in other words, in the CI, properties of quantum states do NOT acquire "reality" until they are measured. Bell allows EITHER locality OR contrafactual definiteness, but not both.

Apr 27, 2015
Remember that Bell shows that measurements on another axis of an entangled particle are still correlated with measurements on the first; the randomization doesn't occur until a measurement is made on a second axis.
I don't know what you meant there, but what you *wrote* doesn't make sense.
Remember that Bell tests measure the spins on two separated particles on random axes; if they happen to be the same they'll be correlated (or anti-correlated); but even if they're different axes there will still be a correlation, it's just not the classical correlation (or anti-correlation) that measurement on the same axis on both members of the entangled ensemble will yield. Does that make it clearer?

Apr 27, 2015
By "classical correlation" I mean either direct (equal) or anti-direct (opposite) correlation if they are measured on the same axis, or the well-known cosine relation if they are on different axes, which Bell specifically disallows (and experiment confirms). They are not totally random if measured on different axes; there is a probability relation given the spin on axis "a" on one particle to the spin on axis "b" on the other, it's just not the cosine relation of classical mechanics.

Apr 27, 2015
No .. I said it correctly. According to the CI, a given angular momentum variable (and spin is intrinsic angular momentum) in QM can have at most one well-defined projection at a time
I don't think that's a feature of Copenhagen, but of QM itself. And it's based on measurements. What we're talking about is what underlies the measurements; the underlying "reality," if you will, and I think Bell says that underlying reality EITHER has values for the Heisenberg uncertain spins, OR there is a non-local interaction that correlates the spins.
No .. Bell says either the quantum states have well-defined properties (prior to measurement) which are determined by nonlocal interactions, OR the quantum states LACK well-defined properties prior to measurement, but which are "resolved" by local interactions at the moment of measurement. Bell says the states CANNOT have well-defined properties that depend ONLY on local interactions, contradicting assumptions from classical physics.

Apr 27, 2015
If they were not correlated, measuring the spin on axis "a" on one of an entangled pair would give a 50/50 chance of the correlated (or anticorrelated, depending on the entanglement type) on axis "b" on the other, but it is not 50/50 if they are entangled; however, it's also not the cosine relation expected in classical mechanics. Am I wrong? Is it 50/50 on axis "b" on the second member of the entangled pair?

but which are "resolved" by local interactions
Did you mean "non-local interactions?"

Apr 27, 2015
Hmmm, I think you got this backwards...

You said,
Bell says either the quantum states have well-defined properties (prior to measurement) which are determined by nonlocal interactions, OR the quantum states LACK well-defined properties prior to measurement, but which are "resolved" by local interactions at the moment of measurement.
I think you meant, "either the quantum states have well-defined properties (prior to measurement) which are determined by LOCAL interactions, OR the quantum states LACK well-defined properties prior to measurement, but which are "resolved" by NON-LOCAL interactions..."

It doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.

Apr 27, 2015
They have to either have well-defined but unmeasurable parameters, OR they have to interact non-locally, is my understanding.

And if you measure one of them BEFORE the test measurement, then the spin will be randomized on ALL OTHER AXES by that measurement, disentangling them. Right?

Apr 27, 2015
Remember that Bell tests measure the spins on two separated particles on random axes; if they happen to be the same they'll be correlated (or anti-correlated); but even if they're different axes there will still be a correlation, it's just not the classical correlation (or anti-correlation) that measurement on the same axis on both members of the entangled ensemble will yield. Does that make it clearer?
Well, I understand Bell just fine, it's the "randomization" that's confusing. In a Bell experiment, the measurement on the first particle sets the quantization axis, and the second particle's spin is an (up/down) eigenstate along that axis. If the axis for the second measurement is the same, then it measures the eigenstate .. perfect up/down (anti)correlation. Otherwise, the projection of the quantization axis on the second measurement axis determines the relative probability of observing an up or down result. So, there's only one relevant quantization axis in a Bell test.

Apr 27, 2015
Hmmm, I think you got this backwards...

You said,
Bell says either the quantum states have well-defined properties (prior to measurement) which are determined by nonlocal interactions, OR the quantum states LACK well-defined properties prior to measurement, but which are "resolved" by local interactions at the moment of measurement.
I think you meant, "either the quantum states have well-defined properties (prior to measurement) which are determined by LOCAL interactions, OR the quantum states LACK well-defined properties prior to measurement, but which are "resolved" by NON-LOCAL interactions..."

It doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.
No, I was careful to say precisely what I meant .. that is what Bell's Theorem allows for. The first case you gave above is a reasonable definition of local realism, i.e. exactly what Bell says cannot be consistent with QM. If you don't grok this, you should really read that Mermin article.

Apr 27, 2015
But that doesn't make sense in terms of the three-polarizers experiment.

And you appear to have confirmed that the measurement on a second axis of the second entangled particle isn't true 50/50, indicating true randomness, but some correlated probability other than 50/50 (but not the classical cosine relation).

I see a conflict here.

Apr 27, 2015
Anyway .. I need to sign off this thread now and get some sleep. I really have stated things as precisely as I can .. as far as I can tell there are no errors in any of my posts, and I want to keep it that way, which is one reason I need to go to bed. If you still have issues, then I'll try to deal with them tomorrow.

Apr 27, 2015
I think we're getting entangled again, heh.

Let's try this again: Bell says either they're (anti)correlated from the start because they were generated from a correlated context, but cannot be measured; OR they interact non-locally so they're (anti)correlated at the end, if we measure them on the same axis, right?

Apr 27, 2015
Sleep well, then. But I think when you re-read tomorrow you'll find you've reversed the logic.

Apr 27, 2015
EDIT from DLK's locality/local-realism correction above (ty).....

If one interpretation maintains [locality], then it must reject counterfactual definiteness and with it the notion of properties existing independently of measurements. Yet, if another interpretation maintains counterfactual definiteness [an epistemological property but yet an important element in physics], then it must reject [locality], and with it our common sense of causality. In either case [Bell's theorem disproves local-realism] ,….

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[ - Bernard d'Espagnat

Apr 27, 2015
C'mon watermonkey, you brought back your little gorilla sockpuppet, put him to work, a mere two extra dumb comments aint gonna cut it... :( keep 'em comin... i'm waiting...

Apr 27, 2015
But that doesn't make sense in terms of the three-polarizers experiment.

And you appear to have confirmed that the measurement on a second axis of the second entangled particle isn't true 50/50, indicating true randomness, but some correlated probability other than 50/50 (but not the classical cosine relation).

I see a conflict here.

You haven't understood what I have written .. I can't tell if it's just the Bell context you aren't getting, or if you have a deeper misunderstanding. But first of all, a normal Bell test setup only uses two polarizers, so let's just talk about that. The key point is that the first measurement breaks the entanglement so that the polarization (or spin) of the second particle is well-defined AND correlated with the first measurement result. But you don't really need entanglement to understand the implication of Bell's Theorem .. here's an explanation using only one photon polarization: http://drchinese....Math.htm