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,