Georges Metanomski posted this as a comment to my Quantum Crackpot Counter Challenge but it is a bit long. After discussing this with George and with several people in support of this, I am posting his comments here as his entry
================
INTUITIVE VIEW OF BELL AND ASPECT
Einstein considered intuition as 90% of physics, maths making the
vague intuition more precise. If you have an intuitive grasp of
a model, you know it, vaguely perhaps, but you do. If you master
model's mathematics, but don't grasp it intuitively, you don't know
anything. Intuition without mathematics may be vague, but mathematics
without intuition is completely blind.
Now, all Bell-Aspect commentaries I know are highly mathematical
and leave little or no place to intuition.
The present little essay tries to make up for it.
================
CONTEXT.
All physical models are founded in the Continuum/Discreteness (CD) Polarity
with foundational primacy of Continuum. Before discussing the QM let's
recall that all trials to inverse the primacy and to found a model in
discreteness resulted in failures and fatuities. a few examples:
-The Aether theory, whose fatuity we have recently discussed, founded
in the discrete fluid - the Aether.
-Mathematics founded during thousands of years in the continuum of
geometry, saw Frege's et Co. fancy to found it in discreteness, to wit
in the fatuous and noxious Set Theory, which produced about 150 versions
and after 130 years did not succeed to define "set" and "number", nor
to ascend from discrete "sets" to continuum without asinine transfinities,
nor, for that matter with them.
-Pseudo-philosophers of consciousness founding it in the discrete brain,
forgetting its polar continuous counterpart, aka Mind.
-And, of course, the QM as we shall see below.
================
QUANTUM PHYSICS (QP)
has more multivalued, muddled terms than any
other branch, e.g. "QM" a catch-all term mixing up higgledy-piggledy
ultraviolet catastrophe, wave function collapse and Higgs boson.
I propose to reserve it for the short interlude of Quantum Physics,
based upon the Schroedinger non-relativistic equation, preceded by
"INCEPTION" and followed by QFT.
For Quantum Physics the CD Polarity says that before quantizing you must
have some continuum - usually Field - to quantize. Taking it into account
I'll may shortly describe the history of the QP as follows:
================
INCEPTION
-Planck's black body quantizes EM field.
-Einstein's photons quantize the EM field
================
QM.
QM, not quantizing anything, nor BTW dealing with any "Mechanics",
is a double misnomer, both for Q and M. All it does is to describe
probability of some undefined contingencies. Its physical void encourages
interpretations, doubly fatuous, because interpreting nothingness,
headed by the (in)famous Copenhagen Interpretation (CI).
And as its phantasmal probability of whatever-it-may-be is expressed in
a wave form, some interpreters particularly weak in the head confuse
it with wave-like propagation of physical fields.
================
QFT
QFT, back to reason after the short stroke of folly quantizes and unifies
EM, week and strong fields and endeavors to quantize the gravity.
================
SOME CLARIFICATIONS
Now, before clarifying numerous muddled terms and concepts pertaining to
our topic, let's state that, however surprising, Bell's theorem does
not concern the QM. Indeed, it defends against EPR's challenge the concept
of entanglement such as falls entirely in the province of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, not being in any way suggested, let alone supported by the
QM model.
Consequently, it should have stayed in the pseudo-philosophical domain
and not be even mentioned in physics else than "shut up and compute".
Yet, it has been dragged into violent, apparently physical polemic,
largely by Einstein's fault:
-He illegally ascended from CI to QM, attributing to the latter the
phantasms of the former.
-He had the tendency to spare opponent's feelings, he had compassion for
Bohr who went from one to another disappointment and did not want to
crash him under the weight of his celebrity. That's why, instead of
dismissing Bohr's dear CI with one word "bullshit" and its underlying QM
as ill founded and anti-scientific, he tried to save the latter as
"incomplete", with help of phantasmal "hidden variables".
-Hidden variables are by definition hidden from physics and any reference
to them is physically meaningless. With one exception: Einstein said that
QM may be "completed" only with infinity of "hidden variables" which
clearly implies a missing underlying continuum of field. And indeed, QM
has been saved by getting proper foundation in field, giving the QFT.
-Locality. Einstein usually muddled his assertions in natural language.
He opposed CI's random acausality with "locality", so hopelessly muddled
that it presented undefendable flank to Bell et Co.
In
http://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d1_causality_and_implication...
I present the repaired (extended) "locality" underlying proper "causality"
conditional on continuum foundation.
As result, the discussion should bear on scientific causality against
the irrational acausality of the QM.
================
BELL AND ASPECT.
Calling a cat a cat, Bell conceived his theorem in order to create a
support for empirical refutation of classic physical causality and
affirmation of QM's acausality with help of Aspect-like experiments.
Thus it would be enough to show physical meaninglessness of Aspect
experiment, to refute Bell's theorem and that's what I propose to do
below after briefly showing that it was derived from false premise
of determinism.
================
DETERMINISM
Causality, as defined in the above link in accordance of Einstein's
foundations of physics is abstract, model dependent, hypothetical,
falsifiable and fuzzy.
These foundations confine physics to the subjective, mental, immanent
interior of the sensorium boundary, leaving the transcendental exterior of
the boundary to metaphysics.
Reified, exported to the transcendental WOT, causality becomes metaphysical
"determinism" attributing to phantasmal "objects" of the WOT a necessary,
absolutely certain, exact and precise "causality".
From the proper, abstract and fuzzy, physical causality Bell could not
have derived his theorem based upon the presumption of certain, exact and
precise character of "hidden variables" and "locality".
He did it from the false premise of determinism wrongly attributed to
physics, which never dealt with metaphysical phantasms.
================
ASPECT
Having proved the ill-determination of the Bell theorem we could be
tempted to disregard experiments designed to verify a false assumption.
However, we cannot apriori rule out that some out of the way feature of
Aspect experiment may save the mathematical formulation of the theorem,
giving it some physical support ignored by the author. We saw such an
example in the Lorentz Transformation, ill-derived and meaningless in
the Aether context, and yet becoming the cornerstone of concurrent
physics, by the SR which bestowed on the ingenious but meaningless
mathematical gimmick a new deep and fundamental physical sens.
DESCRIPTION OF ASPECT EXPERIMENT with inline comments.
based upon http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/experiment.html
Calcium atom's valence electron is placed into an excited state
where it has no net angular momentum (L = 0). As the atom de-excites,
the electron cascades into the 4s4p 1P1 state and releases a green
photon at 551.3 nm. This state then decays back to the 4s2 1S0 state
releasing a blue photon at 422.7 nm.
It is assumed that because the total angular momentum at
the beginning and end of the cascade is zero, the green and blue
must be circularly polarized in opposite directions.
(Comment. False. Each emission has to conserve momentum, i.e. to
balance the emitted momentum. Thus, the green emission is balanced
by itself and the blue emission sets its own +- balance independent
of the green. Relations of green/blue polarizations are entirely
random.)
What happens to the photons which are produced in this experiment?
(Comment. They cease to be "photon" particles and travel as wave
"beams" to recover their "photon" aspect at their detection death.
We shall further consider "photons" exclusively at emission and
detection and talk about "beams" in between.)
When a blue photon is produced at the source, if it travels to the
left down path A, then it will be blocked by the filter along that
path. If, on the other hand, it travels down path B, it will pass
through the filter and travel to the polarization analyzer PA2.
The polarization of the photons produced by the source are oriented
randomly. Using quantum mechanics alone, we cannot make any predictions
about this polarization.
But, there are aspects of the theory
(hidden variables) which ensure that the photon must have a definite
value of polarization. So, half the time our blue photon will pass
through the filter and the other half of the time it will be deflected
by the filter. It is important to note two things at this point. First,
the photon is EITHER deflected by the filter OR it passes through the
filter; one or the other, never both. Secondly, the direction which the
photon takes depends ONLY on its polarization - it does not depend on
any other photon in this experiment nor does it depend on the orientation
of the filter PA1. These two details are the separability and locality
conditions required in John Bell's solution to the EPR paradox.
(Comment. Typical straw man argument replacing causality with muddled
"locality", separability" and "hidden variables", and pretending to
refute the former by contesting the latter.
The causal view sees the beam (not photon) partially passing by the
polarization filter and partially deflected, depending on filter's
orientation and technology. So not "never both", but "usually" and
causally both.
Direction mix which the beam takes after passing the filter depending
on filter's orientation and technology, the (fictional) conditions
required by Bell's solution(?) are not met.
)
The above comments show that causal previsions and QM's acausal ones
are indistinguishable. What's worse, they are both meaningless due
mainly to Micro-/Macroevents dichotomy and to the resulting utterly
confused timing.
Let's consider a microscopic event like the atom decay that determines
the fate of Schrödinger's cat. Shelving the shamanic belief that the
cat's fate remains undecided until one opens the box, the exact time
at which that fate has become certain is unclear. For Aspect tests to
be conclusive we would have to time microscopic events with sufficient
exactitude. But we can time only macroscopic events and that without
their clear definition and exact relation to presupposed microscopic
ones.
The lifetime of the excited atomic state which produces the pair of
involved photons counts 89-nsec. The photon emission time remaining
indeterminate for this period, the final outcome of the event remains
indeterminate for a comparable duration.
The critical time delay for Aspect experiment is that between a change
of polarizer angle and its impact on detecting photon pairs. Aspect
estimated this time as based on the speed of a photon and the distance
between the polarizers and the detectors. However, Quantum Physics,
including the QM itself, forbids assumptions about particle location
between emission and detection. We cannot know when a beam traverses
a polarizer unless we detect (and kill) it at the polarizer, which
we don't do, wishing it to pursue its flight towards the detector.
Aspect's design of loophole-free Bell tests using light amounts to
attempting the impossible, undertaken on a false premise that light
may be modelled as particles. And we cannot demonstrate “quantum
entanglement†by macroscopic experiments. It remains an
uncorroborated presumption of Copenhagen Interpretation.
================
BOTTOM LINE
Physicists, excited by the discovery of quanta, confused
discretisation of continuum with autonomous discreteness and,
with the zeal of neophytes, rushed to create new physics and
Weltanschauung entirely founded in discreteness - the QM
and its shamanic Copenhagen Interpretation.
First euphoria passed, we note the return to the pervading rigorous
physical causality, headed by most prominent creators of the very
QM, Dirac and Schroedinger, whose intellectual honesty and integrity
became proverbial
