This Â
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The section under "the crux of the matter" is wrong. By only measuring the x or z axis you cannot distinguish between a classical system with hidden variables and a quantum system. One has to measure at 45 degrees also. The description is wrong.
Sorry, I meant to put this somewhere else, but I do not know how to delete this.
The impact of consciousness is unquestioned, how much more abstract is consciousness greater will its power both in size and complexity?
The consequences of Bell's inequalities are presented incorrectly. Bell's inequalities require the assumption of statistical independence -- that is, the libertarian free will of the experimenter to choose the settings of the experiment. This is a fundamentally unscientific assumption (as it violates methodological naturalism, an absolute requirement of any scientific approach). Even John Bell himself in a BBC interview in 1985, pointed out that a complete and total absence of free will (by which he specifically meant libertarian free will as compatibilist models don't provide the sort of freedom needed) would allow local realism to still hold in the form of superdeterminism. Despites claims of loophole-free Bell experiments, it is literally and proofably impossible to rule out superdeterminism (and in fact, it's effectively necessary to maintain the methodological naturalism on which science depends). Lrwerewolf ( talk) 15:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the short description. It's tough to fit this one in a few words, but "leveled" is not one of them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In the first line of description of the EPR experiment it is currently written:
I think it is misleading to link "particles" to "states". In quantum mechanics (not quantum field theory), a particle is in a state or it has a state, but it is not a state. In addition, there is a single quantum state not a pair of them involved in the EPR thought experiment. Since @ Johnjbarton: undid my change in the article, I'm starting the discussion here to come to a better formulation. I think it's uncontroversial that
The only question is where to put the wikilinks. I object to linking "particles" to "quantum state" since the two are very different objects; if we don't and link "entangled state" to "quantum entanglement" then the concept of quantum state doesn't appear in the sentence (which is why I linked "entangled" to entanglement and "state" to "quantum state"). An alternative could be:
Would that be ok? -- Qcomp ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The article states, "... it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly; however, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A." This is an error. The uncertainty principle also says it is impossible to measure the exact position of particle A! The idea that knowing the position of particle A allows calculation of the exact position of particle B is also highly suspect. Please, would some Quantum Mechanics guru (which I am not) check this article carefully. Meanwhile, I will take the whole article with a grain of salt. Wcmead3 ( talk) Wcmead3 ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The section under "the crux of the matter" is wrong. By only measuring the x or z axis you cannot distinguish between a classical system with hidden variables and a quantum system. One has to measure at 45 degrees also. The description is wrong.
Sorry, I meant to put this somewhere else, but I do not know how to delete this.
The impact of consciousness is unquestioned, how much more abstract is consciousness greater will its power both in size and complexity?
The consequences of Bell's inequalities are presented incorrectly. Bell's inequalities require the assumption of statistical independence -- that is, the libertarian free will of the experimenter to choose the settings of the experiment. This is a fundamentally unscientific assumption (as it violates methodological naturalism, an absolute requirement of any scientific approach). Even John Bell himself in a BBC interview in 1985, pointed out that a complete and total absence of free will (by which he specifically meant libertarian free will as compatibilist models don't provide the sort of freedom needed) would allow local realism to still hold in the form of superdeterminism. Despites claims of loophole-free Bell experiments, it is literally and proofably impossible to rule out superdeterminism (and in fact, it's effectively necessary to maintain the methodological naturalism on which science depends). Lrwerewolf ( talk) 15:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the short description. It's tough to fit this one in a few words, but "leveled" is not one of them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In the first line of description of the EPR experiment it is currently written:
I think it is misleading to link "particles" to "states". In quantum mechanics (not quantum field theory), a particle is in a state or it has a state, but it is not a state. In addition, there is a single quantum state not a pair of them involved in the EPR thought experiment. Since @ Johnjbarton: undid my change in the article, I'm starting the discussion here to come to a better formulation. I think it's uncontroversial that
The only question is where to put the wikilinks. I object to linking "particles" to "quantum state" since the two are very different objects; if we don't and link "entangled state" to "quantum entanglement" then the concept of quantum state doesn't appear in the sentence (which is why I linked "entangled" to entanglement and "state" to "quantum state"). An alternative could be:
Would that be ok? -- Qcomp ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The article states, "... it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly; however, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A." This is an error. The uncertainty principle also says it is impossible to measure the exact position of particle A! The idea that knowing the position of particle A allows calculation of the exact position of particle B is also highly suspect. Please, would some Quantum Mechanics guru (which I am not) check this article carefully. Meanwhile, I will take the whole article with a grain of salt. Wcmead3 ( talk) Wcmead3 ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)