The Myth of “Quantum Entanglement”

Blog 20160323 The Myth of “Quantum Entanglement”

George Coyne

Regressive physicists who adhere to the ideas of Quantum Mechanical Theory (QMT) accept that something called “quantum entanglement” is a reality. Theoretically, this is supposed to occur when two quantum systems such as particles or groups of particles are linked such that their linear momenta in one direction and spatial coordinates in one direction have a 1:1 relationship. The combined systems can be described as a whole unit, sort of like the ends of a dumbbell. So, ascertaining the momentum or position for a single quantum system will result immediately in setting those properties for the paired one. In the case of the dumbbell we can see the connection between the two ends, but in quantum entanglement, that is not so clear.  

I would be inclined to accept that the experiments proved quantum entanglement if the following protocol was followed, which of course would be impossible throughout the duration of the experiment as described here. A laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal splits individual “photons” into pairs of “entangled photons” (photon A and photon B). These photons, which can be separated by any distance, are followed during the entire experiment. After doing thousands of measurements to photon A and noting corresponding changes to photon B's spin (e.g.: from an up spin to a down spin and back to an up spin etc), regardless of how many observations are made every time the physicist measures specific photon A's spin, then the specific photon B's spin will have the opposite spin. Unless this is the way the experiment is done then the results are meaningless.

When I described this scenario to Glenn Borchardt his response helped to clarify the situation. He said: “First of all, there are no such things as "photons." At best, many of the properties attributed to photons are the properties of individual aether particles. I doubt that any of what you mentioned is other than mathematical imagination. I have speculated that there are 10^20 aether particles in an electron (from Planck's constant and equations), so I can't imagine determining the spin of any one of them, much less a pair of them. BTW: I would love to have someone show me an experiment that does what you suggest. I don't need the math, just the data that proves it. In my opinion, data is far more significant as a proof than math.”

Also, one must take into account that entanglement experiments always involve the conservation of matter in motion. In the comments section of an October 2010 blog http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.ca/2015/10/spooky-action-at-distance.html Bill Westmiller accurately pointed out that complementary trajectories and attributes are inevitable when two particles (or waves) are emitted by a single object, and thus one should expect that the opposite spin will always be found on the paired object. Therefore it is ridiculous to think that there is a causal relationship involved in this. In referring to another problem involving more complex “entanglements” he stated that “spin has no preferred orientation: it is never entirely positive or negative. The instruments can only measure one or the other, even when the spin axis is up to 90 degrees off perpendicular. The "quantum effect" is just a 2% error rate in the instrument”.

For the paired particles to be “communicating” their quantum state to one another instantly irrespective of galactic distances would require faster than light transmission of information. As this violates Einstein's universal speed limit, he rejected entanglement as requiring “spooky action at a distance.” This objection is explained in a 1935 paper that he wrote with Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen: “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Now known as EPR, the paper contends that the wave function cannot sustain completeness of the quantum description without violating the principle of locality.

Bell's theorem is the counter argument to EPR. It states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of QMT. Bell's 1964 paper, "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"[1] provided an analogy to the EPR paradox. He said a measurement decision concerning one paired particle should not influence its paired particle. But by using a math formulation based on realism and locality, Bell provided cases where this would not equal QMT predictions. Clauser and Freedman (1972)[2] and Aspect and others (1981),[3] showed that in this respect QMT is accurate. Although their experiments apparently “proved” Bell-inequality violations, thereby excluding all local hidden variable explanations for QMT they do not do this for non-local hidden variables. But more importantly as mentioned previously, the experimental protocol was so flawed that the results are without any significance.

Bell provided one non-QMT explanation for entanglement. This is the idea of absolute determinism in the universe. He states:

“Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the “decision” by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already “knows” what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."[4]

Although absolute determinism, as an explanation for Bell's theorem, doesn't require bringing in the nonsensical superposition of QMT particles, it is inappropriate in many ways including that it requires a finite universe. As Glenn Borchardt informed me while preparing this blog : “It cannot work because the correct analysis is based on UD which is based on infinite causality instead of finite causality.” In case you are not familiar with UD, it means Univironmental Determinism. It states that whatever happens to a portion of the universe ( “a “microcosm") depends on the infinite matter in motion within that microcosm and the infinite matter in motion external to that microcosm.

Another problem with Bell's absolute determinism explanation is that it requires the non-scientific idea that a particle or even the universe is capable of “knowing” something.

A powerful argument against Bell's theorem can be made by challenging the validity of the assumption that math is all that we need to represent reality. Bell's theorem supposedly proved that those opposing entanglement were wrong. But in fact the test was incapable of doing this in the real world because it was restricted to Set Theory and Venn Diagrams, which are pure basic forms of Math. His method was used to create a set of inequalities which were employed to set limits. If they were violated in the real world then entanglement theory was falsely declared correct because the realist opponents were thought to be wrong. The major problem was the incorrect assumption that equations are the "Essence of Reality." It is evident that Bell's Inequalities, based on his methodology, are only applicable to Formal Logic and purely formal relations, which are imaginary.

Rather than accepting the absurd idea of “superposition” of particles or Bell's absolute determinism, it seems more reasonable to not accept the concept that what is being observed in the experiments is caused by so called “entanglement.” Glenn Borchardt addresses this point in this statement:

“Again, phenomena that display “action at a distance” are “spooky” only to aether deniers. Without aether, we are stuck with “curved empty space,” “curved spacetime,” or the magical “attractive force” that still makes no sense even though it has been a solipsistic favorite for centuries. What seems to be “action at a distance” is most likely a local effect produced by variations in aether pressure, as we suggested as the neomechanical cause of gravitation.”

Physicists have no possibilty of knowing what state either particle of the “entangled” pair was in before the measurement. Those who subscribe to this entanglement abstraction claim that the paired particles were in a superposition.” That only ended when one of them was measured, thereby causing the particles superposition to collapse into one particular state. This totally unintuitive and unscientific nonsense that violates all reason and common sense was clearly invented to support the concept of entanglement.

The entanglement abstraction is a perfect illustration of a concept that developed as a result of confusing a formal imaginary mathematical description for what could possibly occur in the real universe. Most importantly, it demonstrates how physicists come to accept the most implausible and even impossible theories as a consequence of not recognizing when they are dealing with an abstraction that has no association with reality.  

It amazes me that physicists have been so incredibly foolish in how they interpreted the "entanglement" experiments. The fact that they were so convinced of the reality of “entanglement” led me to believe that I was not understanding something. But apparently it is the regressive physicists who are not comprehending the facts.

[1]       Bell, John (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1 (3): 195–200.

[2]       Stuart J. Freedman and John F. Clauser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 – Published 3 April 1972

[3]       Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gérard Roger.  Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 – Published 20 December 1982

[4]       The quotation is an adaptation from the edited transcript of the radio interview with John Bell of 1985. See The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics by Paul C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown,


Noob said...

So the quantum entanglement should be thought as aether "entanglement". As we can see from silicon walking droplets experiments, there is no particle exists without accompanying wave, microcosm will cause a ripple in macrocosm. An analogy in social world would be no human can exist without affecting society.

But can we repeat this experiment in 3D space? What is the nature of aether, is it some kind of fluid like silicon, or superfluid similar to Helium-4?

George Coyne said...

Thanks very much Noob for your comment on my blog. I do not think there is “aether entanglement” or any other entanglement because I think the abstraction is the result of a misinterpretation of what is occurring. The Yves Couder experiments that you refer to are an analogy to what Bohm's Pilot wave theory discusses. You are quite right about a particle needing the wave to exist. Using a Bohmian perspective particles are semi-independent, apparently local constant aspects of an underlying process, without which the so-called particle and its properties can not exist. This holistic model was the foundation for his theory of the implicate (enfolded) and explicate (unfolded) order. In Bohm's enhanced Louis deBroglie Pilot wave theory, it is not appropriate to claim that a wave is guiding a particle, because that involves an incorrect conception of the particle and wave existing independently, which is definitely not the situation. My book titled “The Cosmos Has No Paradoxes: With Valid Abstractions” includes some discussion on entanglement and Pilot wave theory. The book may be available by late summer.

In regard to aether, I suspect it exists as a fluid and a gas.

Bligh said...

In regards to Coyne's April 18 comment:
Bohm's enfolded order is the fundamental field of oscillation. Photons and particles can arise separately or entangled, but the point is that they are SECONDARY phenomena within the fundamental field. Until we all understand this and get our language descriptions on the same page, these discussions will remain confused.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your comment.I stand by my comment and see no reason to change it. On this matter my position is the same as that of Basil Hiley's. He co-wrote "The Undivided Universe" with David Bohm. If you are convinced of your position you may want to send him an email as to why you think that he is incorrect.