(9) evolves to the final state( ly&+-tl-c+&Id )+ild+&lc-&+Id+&ld &). (io)

If both BS2+ and BS2 are removed then

After passing point P

Taken separatelyeach interferometer is arranged so that, due to destructiveinterference, no positrons or electrons will be detected atdetector D — in output d —

li -&-(I/~2)(ilc-&+Id-&).

The operation of BS2 —is given bylu —& —(I/J2)(lc &—+i ld —&)

The operation of BS1 —is given by[s -& (I/J2)(i(u -&+ (c —&

We will find that, as a conse-quence of this possible interaction between the two parti-cles, it becomes possible for positrons and electrons to ar-rive at detectors D —. This gedanken experiment is amodification of a gedanken experiment proposed by theauthor [7] to investigate empty waves and the latter is anextension of a gedanken experiment proposed by Elitzurand Vaidman [g] to demonstrate the possibility ofinteraction-free measurement.

In this Letter wetake a diR'erent approach and show, by considering a newgedanken experiment, that it is possible to demonstrateBell's theorem by means of a direct contradiction (i.e.,without the need of inequalities) using a two-particlestate

We findthat, if the "elements of reality" corresponding toLorentz-invariant observables are themselves Lorentz in-variant, then Lorentz-invariant realistic interpretations ofquantum mechanics are not possible.

Consequently, having establishedthat all realistic interpretations of quantum mechanicsmust be nonlocal (this is Bell's theorem)

However, when the deBroglie-Bohm approach is applied to relativistic quantumtheories [6] we find that these theories, in addition to be-ing nonlocal, are also not Lorentz invariant at the level ofthe hidden variables.

there is no classical reason half a photon’s worth of EM energy could not be detected on each of the four final detectors. Therefore the probabilities assigned by CEM to non-zero probability outcomes do not always match the probabilities assigned by quantum mechanics, and thus while this analysis recovers the zero-probability cases utilized by Hardy’s proof, the rest of the argument cannot be made and so there is no contradiction between Hardy’s proof and the fact that the CEM model is local.

The crucial difference is that in classical physics, EM fields are not absorbed in discrete quantities,

The other zero-probability case (20) appears quite different, as a polarization corresponding to |𝜒〉|χ〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>χ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the first photon implies 9𝐴1𝑓=−16𝐴3𝑓9A1f=−16A3f<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>9</mn> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mo>−</mo> <mn>16</mn> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>3</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and a polarization corresponding to |+′〉|+′〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> </mrow> <msup> <mo>+</mo> <mo>′</mo> </msup> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the second photon implies 0.8𝐴2𝑓=0.6𝐴4𝑓0.8A2f=0.6A4f<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>0.8</mn> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.6</mn> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>4</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. However, a closer examination reveals that the numerical factor in the final term of Equation (19) is determined by the ratio 𝐴3𝑓𝐴4𝑓/(𝐴1𝑓𝐴2𝑓)=−0.75A3fA4f/(A1fA2f)=−0.75<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>3</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>4</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>=</mo> <mo>−</mo> <mn>0.75</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>. This ratio is precisely the same for this third case, so the calculation of 𝐼𝑖𝑛Iin<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>I</mi> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> yields the same Equation (19) despite the superficially different values.

The framework presented here demonstrates that at least in the two-photon case, the distribution of zero-probability outcomes is not a characteristically quantum phenomenon. This has implications for ongoing discussions over Hardy’s paradox, as discussed in Section 3.3. It is common to interpret Hardy’s result as demonstrating that quantum-mechanical nonlocality can be demonstrated using purely the distribution of zero-probability results, but since we have shown that the zero-probability cases in Hardy’s case can be reproduced within classical electromagnetism, it is now clear that what makes Hardy’s example characteristically quantum is not the assignation of zero probabilities per se, but rather the discrete restriction on the set of possible outcomes. This is an intriguing indication that discreteness may have a closer relationship with quantum no-go theorems than much of the literature would seem to suggest

Classical EM has an ontology of local beables; the fields 𝑬(𝑥,𝑦,𝑧,𝑡)E(x,y,z,t)<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">E</mi> <mo>(</mo> <mi>x</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>y</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> and 𝑩(𝑥,𝑦,𝑧,𝑡)B(x,y,z,t)<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">B</mi> <mo>(</mo> <mi>x</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>y</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> appear to describe localized events, and thus most physicists are happy to take the mathematics literally and imagine these fields ‘existing’ at the corresponding location in spacetime, matching the notion of a pointlike event in relativity

This perfect anti-correlation disappears if either of the two polarizers is rotated even slightly relative to the other

As expected, another anti-correlation is evident. If measured on this diagonal basis, the two photons cannot have perpendicular polarizations—they cannot be aligned either on |+−〉|+−〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mo>+</mo> <mo>−</mo> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> or |−+〉|−+〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mo>+</mo> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>.

A more interesting quantum anti-correlation can be achieved by rotating the measurement basis of each photon to a diagonal polarization—rotating each polarizing beamsplitter by 45 degrees (𝛽1=𝛽2=𝜋/4β1=β2=π/4<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>β</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>β</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mi>π</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mn>4</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>). Now each of the two photons is measured in the basis |+〉=(|𝐻〉+|𝑉〉)/2−−√|+〉=(|H〉+|V〉)/2<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mo>+</mo> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>=</mo> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>H</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>+</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>V</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>/</mo> <msqrt> <mn>2</mn> </msqrt> </mrow> </semantics></math> and |−〉=(|𝐻〉−|𝑉〉)/2−−√|−〉=(|H〉−|V〉)/2<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mo>−</mo> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>=</mo> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>H</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>V</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>/</mo> <msqrt> <mn>2</mn> </msqrt> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Rewriting the quantum state in this basis, one finds |𝜓〉=12−−√|++〉−12−−√|−−〉.

The amplified fields enter a polarizing beamsplitter, set at some angle 𝛽β<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>β</mi> </semantics></math> to distinguish two orthogonal polarization angles

For the classical analog, it is reasonable to take this non-event to be a measurement of zero electromagnetic field energy in the corresponding EM mode

For maximal information at measurement, each single-photon detector should not merely be placed behind a polarizing filter, but behind a polarizing beamsplitter which separates the two polarizations onto two different paths, each leading to a single-photon detector (see Figure 1)

We will begin by revisiting the Type-II PDC procedure discussed immediately above, post-selected such that exactly two photons are eventually detected, one with wavevector 𝒌1k1<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </semantics></math> and another with wavevector 𝒌2k2<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics></math>. These photons will be named “#1” and “#2”, respectively. The phase-matching constraints require that either #1 be horizontally polarized and #2 be vertically polarized—call this state |𝐻𝑉〉|HV〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>—or else #1 be vertically polarized and #2 be horizontally polarized—call this state |𝑉𝐻〉|VH〉<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>. According to quantum theory, such a preparation procedure can therefore result in the maximally entangled state |𝜓〉=(|𝐻𝑉〉+|𝑉𝐻〉)/2−−√|ψ〉=(|HV〉+|VH〉)/2<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mi>ψ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>=</mo> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>+</mo> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>/</mo> <msqrt> <mn>2</mn> </msqrt> </mrow> </semantics></math> (This hides a phase ambiguity; there should be a 𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑖𝜃)exp(iθ)<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>e</mi> <mi>x</mi> <mi>p</mi> <mo>(</mo> <mi>i</mi> <mi>θ</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> between the two terms, with 𝜃θ<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>θ</mi> </semantics></math> determined by experimental details (generally measured empirically rather than calculated)

There is no shortage of energy provided in the pump beam 𝐴0A0<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>A</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msub> </semantics></math>, given the usual low conversion factors from the pump beam to the single output photons.

By combining these with (4) and (5), it is clear that classical EM theory predicts that one might see a gain in all four of these modes, not merely two

The crucial piece of physics which allows for entanglement generation is that there is more than one pair of photon modes that obey the phase-matching conditions. In particular, for at least one pair of directions, it is possible for the photon in the first direction to be (H), and the second to be (V), but it is also possible for a completely different pair of photon modes to be generated via PDC—(V) in the first direction and (H) in the second.

The 𝒌k<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> </semantics></math> of these photons are different, but also correlated by phase-matching. For a classical account of this process, each input seed considered in the previous subsection must have the same polarization and 𝒌k<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> </semantics></math> as the output, to be properly amplified

One well-known scheme to generate entangled photons uses Type-II PDC, where the resulting photons are forced by phase-matching to have one with horizontal polarization (H) and one with vertical polarization (V), as determined by the optical axis of the crystal

It is much easier to analyze classical three-wave mixing if the envelope of each wave can be described by a single complex field amplitude 𝐸𝑖(𝑡)Ei(t)<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>E</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi>t</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> (complex to encode classical phase information)

The polarization of the two lower-frequency modes is determined by crystal geometry. For the Type-II crystals generally used for entangled photon generation, one of these lower-frequency modes is the ordinary wave and the other is the extraordinary wave, and these two modes always have orthogonal polarization directions [17].

Inside the medium, the usual 𝜔ω<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> and 𝒌k<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> </semantics></math> phase-matching conditions are assumed to hold; 𝜔0=𝜔1+𝜔2ω0=ω1+ω2<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ω</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>ω</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> <mo>+</mo> <msub> <mi>ω</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and 𝒌0=𝒌1+𝒌2k0=k1+k2<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> <mo>+</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, corresponding to energy- and momentum-conservation of the corresponding photons. (This paper will not bother to distinguish the change in 𝜔ω<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> and 𝒌k<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">k</mi> </semantics></math> as the fields enter or leave the gain medium because it is not relevant to any of the calculations; both classical and quantum theory treat this change in essentially the same manner.)

This section will outline what would be predicted from such an analysis, given only classical EM theory and classical (but unknown) input seeds in the form of classical EM waves. The detectors will also be treated classically, in that they will serve as a perfectly informative measurement of what fields are present at those locations. This is not a semiclassical analysis of probabilities, but rather a classical analysis with no restriction on measurement precision of the classical EM fields. Of course, the result of this analysis will disagree with actual experiments—it will certainly not result in entangled photons—but it is necessary to test the JORCA conjecture

If classical EM theory were exactly correct, it is not immediately obvious what it would predict for a typical experiment known to generate entangled photons.

There also exist approaches using quantum vacuum fields as seeds to explain PDC—for example, by Heuer, Menzel, and Milonni [14]—and approaches using the Wigner representation for PDC—for example, by Casado, Marshall, and Santos [15]. However, these models are quantum,

these models make ad hoc choices of hidden variables especially chosen to fit the observed results, and the zero-probability results were accounted for by imperfect detection efficiencies

Specifically, in the measurements allowed by quantum theory, there always seems to be a pattern of classical input seed waves that would experience a net gain from a classical pump beam and then result in an output field pattern analogous to the measured photons

According to classical EM, for any possible background fields, what are the allowed outputs from this experimental procedure? The remarkable conclusion is that according to classical EM, some joint outcome patterns can never extract energy from the pump laser, and these are precisely the outcome patterns that quantum theory says should have zero probability.

The essential argument in this paper is simple enough to present in its entirety in a single paragraph

one trivial model to explain the zero probability of an | V V 〉 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> or | H H 〉 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">|</mo> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mo stretchy="false">〉</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> outcome would be to suppose that classical EM waves were always sent to the two detectors such that one wave was horizontally polarized and the other was vertically polarized. However, such an ad hoc model would not explain why such a preparation would correspond to this particular state, and it would not be generalizable to other evident anti-correlations from the very same state. The above quantum example also would exhibit anti-correlations if each photon were measured in the same diagonally polarized basis, while the ad hoc classical model would not.

Einstein thought that certain personal matters of his life should not be madepublic. That is the reason he did not like biographies that dealt too much withhis personal life [38]. But private letters are profusely found in the CollectedPapers of Albert Einstein (CPAE ); for instance, Einstein’s love letters to his firstwife, Mileva Mari ́c; Einstein’s later correspondence with Mari ́c and his two sons,Hans Albert, and Eduard; Einstein’s exchange of letters with his second wifeand first cousin, Elsa Lowenthal Einstein; correspondence with Einstein’s sister,Maja; letters Einstein wrote to his extra-marital lover Betty Neumann, etc.

The reasons behind the decision to publish Einstein’s private correspondenceare that Einstein is not a private person anymore; his life is open to the public.Einstein has ceased being a private individual and belongs to history. SinceEinstein is long dead, publishing his letters cannot cause him any harm

Jakob Laub wrote toEinstein, ”I must confess to you that I was surprised to read that you have tosit in an office for eight hours a day. But, history is full of bad jokes” (Laub toEinstein, [11], Doc. 91, March 1, 1908)

Einstein later wrote that, unlike himself, Marcel Grossmann ”was not avagabond and loner”[15]. Einstein wrote to Mileva Mari ́c: “I always find thatI am in the best company when I am alone, except when I am with you” [10](Einstein to Mari ́c, Doc 128, Dec 17, 1901).

I did the exact search, and Ifound only 25 pages. Still, it does not mean that these 25 pages are convincing.

10I would like to correct some of the stigmas and prejudices about Asperger’s syndromefound in An Einstein Encyclopedia. Asperger’s syndrome (autism) is neither a disease nora mental or emotional disorder. Asperger’s syndrome (autism) is also not a disorder people”suffer” from. Asperger’s syndrome is not any of the following: a defect, developmentalanomaly, pathological conduct, a mental illness, schizophrenia, and bouts of severe depression.

We have Einstein’s rudeletter in which he lashed out at the editor of The Physical Review : ”We (Mr.Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorizedyou to show it to specialists before it was printed. I see no reason to addressyour anonymous expert’s – in any case, erroneous – comments. Based on thisincident, I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere” [27]

In my opinion, the above narrative, very unfortunately, strips off Einsteinfrom his great sense of humor, from being stubborn and unconventional andsticking out his tongue at his pursuers to express his annoyance (the photographthat has been reproduced endlessly).

In his biography of Einstein, His Life and Universe, Walter Issaacson elu-cidates why he is not convinced of the diagnosis of Einstein with Asperger’ssyndrome: ”Even as a teenager, Einstein made close friends, had passionate re-lationships, enjoyed collegial discussions, communicated well verbally, and couldempathize with friends and humanity in general” [21].

First, when I wrote my first book, I was told that Albert Einstein, his sisterMaja Winteler-Einstein, and the family members had exaggerated the story ofAlbert, who developed slowly, learned to talk late, and whose parents thoughtsomething was wrong with him. I was further told that, of course, there is nodoubt that these stories have a grain of truth, and Maja and Albert recounttheir recollections in all sincerity, but these stories sound like family tales andmay be exaggerated. Moreover, Einstein’s friends and assistants (in interviewsand correspondences) contributed to spreading this myth. They thus inspiredbiographers to create a widespread mythical public image of Albert Einsteinthat embodies stories about Einstein, ”the retarded genius.

Ioan James writes [23]: ”In the case of Einstein, we can conclude that he didhave Asperger’s syndrome.” James has further stated: ”Although it seems tobe widely accepted that Einstein had the syndrome, none of the many detailedbiographies mentions this” [22]. First, such a diagnosis does not make anydifference in the scholarship of Einstein and the pathway to his theories. Second,not only do none of the ”biographies mention this,” several biographies even tryto denounce it, as I show in the next section, claiming it is an utter myth

But ”The text contains numerous inaccuracies” [32]

colleague also recalled that Einstein showed up at the patent officeone day with a saw and proceeded to shorten the legs of his chair because itwas not adjustable and was too high for him [17]

Over the years, Einsteinmade different statements that depended on the people he spoke with. He wouldsay one thing in the presence of distinguished scientists, cooperating in tributeswithout questioning the narratives, and would say quite the opposite on otheroccasions

Einstein admired several women and femalephysicists and mathematicians of his time, e.g., the brilliant genius physicistMarie Curie and genius mathematician Emmy Noether

Hence,I suggest not comparing yourself to Einstein if only for the many things youdon’t know about him. You can’t know everything about Einstein because it isimpossible to read all the primary sources. And even if you manage to read allthat, many documents have gone missing, and there is always hope of findingnew lost letters, diaries, and manuscripts.

First, the people purporting to compare themselves to Einstein fail to men-tion that his disheveled exterior reflected his inner humility. As he once said:”I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or theuniversity president” [24]. This is typical of people with Asperger’s syndrome,but by the same token, this behavior is also typical of humble people

Albert Einstein and HenryCavendish in the field of physics have all been described [by James]as autistic.

Einstein’sdress and hair were typical of an adult with autistic tendencies

Grandin compares herself to Einstein: ”Like Einstein, I am motivated by thesearch for intellectual truth.”

This passage is anachronistic. How does Grandin know that both the childand Einstein were autistic? Children were not yet diagnosed as autistic inEinstein’s lifetime

etrospective diagnosis isanachronistic because people try to diagnose a disease or disorder of the pastin contemporary terms

t was as important for him to improvise on the piano as it was for himto work on his physics. ’It is a way for me to be independent of people,’ he said.’And this is highly necessary for the kind of society in which we have.’5

John Stachel gave a name to people who care about Einstein’s legacy (whathe considered as the staunchest defenders of his reputation); he called them”keepers of the flame”.7

7Stachel writes in his book, Einstein From ’B’ to ’Z’ : ”I soon became aware of anotherperil involving loss of boundaries: the danger of becoming a ‘keeper of the flame’ rather thana seeker of the truth.” [37]6

The retrospective diagnosis is a hobby of clinicians interested in historywho enjoy testing their diagnostic acumen on famous historical figures

abysmal performanceat school

Barbara Wolff – who had a long tenure at the Albert Einstein Archives andis an editor in the Einstein Papers Project – and Hananya Goodman write [40]

2Michelmore begins his book by saying: ”In February, 1962, I spent two days with HansAlbert Einstein in his home overlooking San Francisco Bay. Hans Albert, fifty-seven, the olderson of Albert Einstein [...]. He had never discussed his father before with any writer, at leastnot in depth. But he answered all my questions and waited while I wrote down the answers.”

1Here is a list of signs of twice-exceptionality and Asperger’s syndrome in adults (includingthe following but not limited to these):

Baron-Cohendid not base his retrospective diagnosis on historical medical records writtenby physicians. He instead diagnosed Einstein based on fragments of evidencemainly found in biographies.

Baron-Cohen has argued that in several biographies of Einstein, it was writtenthat Einstein was a loner and could not speak until he was three

I was reluctant to meddle in Einstein’s private life. Iprefer to occupy myself with Einstein’s physics

This perhaps explains the tendency of people to find counterclaims andmyths more persuasive than historians’ explanations which seem deeplyproblematic

I think we cannot di-agnose a dead perso

The solution, and the reason the idea of shell structure in nuclei is such a counter-intuitive notion, is both elegant and simple. Consider a single nucleon in a nucleus. Within this nuclear fluid we can consider the interactions of each of the nucleons with the one we have singled out. All of these nucleons move rather quickly through this fluid, leading to the fact that our nucleons only sees the average effects of the attraction of all the other ones. This leads to us replacing, to first approximation, this effect by an average nuclear potential, as sketched in Figure 4.1.1\PageIndex{1}. Figure 4.1.1\PageIndex{1}: A sketch of the averaging approximation Thus the idea is that the shell structure is caused by the average field of all the other nucleons, a very elegant but rather surprising notion!

Scientists find it hard to give up their hypotheses. But even Popper warnedscientists not to give up their hypotheses too easily and not, at any rate, beforethey have critically examined them. In the face of apparent refutations, scien-tists who give up their hypotheses too easily will never discover the possibilitiesinherent in their model

But a scientist has to conjecture when to stop defending a favorite hypothesisand when to try a new one ([28])

But thissingle instance does not provide observational confirmation of Hawking’s arealaw.

it was concluded that ”the GW150914 merger ”produced a Kerrblack hole as described by general relativity” [14], pp.111102-1-3, p. 111102-5

So, for instance, the no-hair theorem states that ”all black holes are thesame”. They all have no-hair. Let us call this sentence S1. The sentence S2”whatever is not the same is not a black hole” is logically equivalent to S1. Leta and b be two objects such that a is a black hole with no-hair and b are blackand white chairs. a would confirm S1 and b would confirm S2. Again, since S1and S2 are logically equivalent, b would also confirm S1. Thus, observing moreinstances of hairless black holes would not confirm the no-hair theorem

It should be stressed that if by confirmation is meant a complete, a definitiveand final establishment of truth, then a hypothesis can never be confirmed.There is no complete confirmation possible but only a process of graduallyincreasing confirmation

There are three stages in the coalescence of the twoblack holes [23], pp. 18-19

Maximiliano Isi and colleagues who have performed the test write in their paper:”We present observational confirmation of Hawking’s black-hole area theorembased on data from GW150914, finding agreement with the prediction

I will explain the precise sense in which hypotheses may be confirmableand falsifiable

aim of this paper is to analyse from a philosophical point of view the tests ofthe no-hair theorem and the area law

The area of the final black hole is greater thanthe sum of the areas of the initial black holes as predicted by my black holes areatheorem

Art HobsonProf of Physics, Univ. of Arkansas, 1964-present (1964–present) · Author has 5.9K answers and 2.3M answer views · 3y · No. The thing that troubled Einstein the most about quantum physics was that its “spooky action at a distance” seemed to violate his special theory of relativity, not to mention common sense. Since 2015, we’ve known that Einstein was wrong about this. Spooky action at a distance (called non-locality) exists and it does not violate the special theory of relativity. The first real evidence for non-locality was a “Bell test” experiment by John Clauser in 1972, followed by Alain Aspect’s experiment in 1982. Since then, there have been many Bell-test experiments, culminating with three experiments in 2015 that closed all the plausible loopholes.

Sagnac's experiment, known as the Sagnac effect, was not conducted with the intention of disproving Einstein's theory of relativity. Instead, it was designed to test the properties of light in rotating systems. Georges Sagnac, a French physicist, performed the experiment in 1913 to demonstrate the existence of the aether, which was a hypothetical medium thought to fill the universe and through which light waves were believed to propagate.

The Sagnac effect is significant for the GPS: the Sagnac time correction in the Global Positioning System:

Lalli says that historically there was little knowledge of the Sagnac effect and little debate about its interpretation.

Sagnac performed an experiment with an interferometer, which he interpreted as a verification of the existence of the ether:

A fun read.

The two particles are therefore entangled (entanglement means inseparability) but this entanglement gradually weakens

Impressed by the EPR paper, Schrödinger responded with a series of publications in 1935, "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics". Schrödinger invented the cat paradox:

Shortly after publication of the EPR paper, Erwin Schrödinger wrote to Einstein to congratulate him and he added: "The separation process is not at all encompassed by the orthodox scheme" of quantum mechanics to which Einstein replied (quoted in The Shaky Game):Dear Schrödinger, I was very happy with your long letter, which dealt with my little paper. For reasons of language, this one was written by Podolsky after many discussions. But still it has not come out as well as I really wanted; on the contrary, the main point was, so to speak, buried by the erudition… A Talmudic philosopher [probably Niels Bohr] is anti-realist.

to demonstrate that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fails because quantum mechanics is incomplete:

Gali WeinsteinPhD. Foundations (history, philosophy) of physics. · 5y · Was Albert Einstein troubled by Quantum Physics only because it conflicted with his General Theory of relativity?Einstein the realist did not object to quantum mechanics. His primary difficulty was with a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics and the inseparability (entanglement) in quantum mechanics. He, therefore, strived to derive the main results of quantum mechanics from a deterministic unified field theory (a unification of a refined form of general relativity and electrodynamics) in which there would be no inseparability problem. Of course, particles are not entangled in general relativity and it is a deterministic theory. But Einstein objected to entanglement and to a probabilistic interpretation to quantum mechanics because of his realist position and not because it conflicted with his general theory of relativity. It is our modern point of view (since Stephen Hawking’s studies in the 1970s) that quantum mechanics conflicts with classical general relativity and we thus have to find ways to reconcile the two theories. For instance, we try to do so in the form of quantum gravity. However, this is a modern point of view. It was not Einstein’s view! These are the two primary things Einstein objected to (presented in his own colourful words) in quantum mechanics:“God does not play dice”: Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.“Spooky action at a distance”: inseparability and entanglement.First, “God does not play dice”: Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Ironically, it was Einstein’s own contributions to quantum physics that had prompted Born to propound his probabilistic interpretation, as Born himself attested in his 1926 paper:I hereby start from a comment of Einstein’s regarding the relation between the wave field and light quanta. He says approximately that the waves are only seen as showing the way for the corpuscular light quanta, and he spoke in the same sense of a “ghost field”. This determines the probability that one light quantum, which is the carrier of energy and momentum, chooses a definite path. The field itself, however, does not have energy or momentum. … it is obvious to regard the de Broglie-Schrödinger waves as a “ghost field”, or even better as a guiding field.Einstein’s “ghost field” was defined as “the waves are only seen as showing the way for the corpuscular light quanta”, that is, a quantum particle has a ghost field (a wave) associated with it or, the particle is guided by a field. Born wrote to Einstein a month before the above paper was published:About me, it can be told that physics-wise I am entirely satisfied since my idea to look upon Schrödinger's wave field as a “ghost field” in your sense proves better all the time.What an irony of fate that Einstein gave Born the idea to look upon Schrödinger's wave function as God playing a dice… Schrödinger introduced the wave function into quantum mechanics and tried to interpret it in terms of a wavelike model. Born wanted to find a way for reconciling particles and waves, and he was relating probability to no other thing but to Einstein’s ghost field! Alas, according to Born the wave function had no physical reality and Einstein’s ghost field became a probability amplitude. Einstein, however, objected to Born’s probabilistic interpretation of Schrödinger's wave mechanics. He also opposed to the transformation of his “ghost field” into probability amplitude! Einstein went back to the blackboard and wrote that light quanta are guided by a wave, a “gohst field” and he wrote to Born a letter on December 4, 1926, in which he expressed his strict objection to Born’s interpretation:Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing dice.Einstein tells Born that “He is not playing dice”. Subsequently, Einstein also objected to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The more you know about something's momentum, the less you know about its position; and the more you know about its position, the less you know about its momentum. This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which Einstein could not accept. Gali Weinstein's answer to What does the quote “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” by Albert Einstein mean? Second, “Spooky action at a distance”: inseparability and entanglement. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle prompted Einstein, his assistant Nathan Rosen and Einstein’s Russian Colleague Boris Podolsky to propose the EPR argument. Here I give a pedestrian explanation of the EPR argument: Gali Weinstein's answer to What is the explanation for EPR paradox? Shortly after the publication of the EPR paper, Schrödinger wrote to Einstein to congratulate him and he added: "The separation process is not at all encompassed by the orthodox scheme" of quantum mechanics, to which Einstein replied (quoted in The Shaky Game):Dear Schrödinger, I was very happy with your long letter, which dealt with my little paper. For reasons of language, this one was written by Podolsky after many discussions. But still it has not come out as well as I really wanted; on the contrary, the main point was, so to speak, buried by the erudition… A Talmudic philosopher [probably Niels Bohr] is anti-realist.To get past the Talmudic philosopher Einstein invoked a supplementary principle, the separation principle. Einstein then explained to Schrödinger what he meant by the separation principle. Consider the two particles A and B that interact and then separate.After the interaction, the real state of AB consists precisely of the real state of A and the real state of B, which two states have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. The real state of B thus cannot depend upon the kind of measurement I carry out on A ('Separation Hypothesis' from above). But then for the same state of B there are two (and in general arbitrarily many) equally justified ψB, which contradicts the hypothesis of one-to-one or complete description of the real states.In 1947 Einstein wrote again a letter to Born:I cannot make a case for my attitude in physics which you would consider at all reasonable. I admit, of course, that there is a considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance. I am, however, not yet firmly convinced that it can really be achieved with a continuous [unified] field theory, although I have discovered a possible way of doing this which so far seems quite reasonable. The calculation difficulties are so great that I will be biting the dust long before I myself can be fully convinced of it. But I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is, I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand.Einstein the realist tells Born that “physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance”.

The answer is therefore that Fizeau’s water tube experiment does not disprove special relativity

Gali WeinsteinPhD. Foundations (history, philosophy) of physics.4,205 followers · 30 followingGalina Weinstein, Ph.D., I am diagnosed with high-functioning autism (twice exceptional). I am an expert in the foundations of special and general relativity, the history and philosophy of relativity, and an expert in Einstein’s legacy. I’ve published books and papers on Albert Einstein’s path to the special and general theories of relativity. I specialize in art history, especially Leonardo da Vinci, and I’m specifically interested in artistic diagnostics.

Gali WeinsteinPhD. Foundations (history, philosophy) of physics. · 1y · Here are the traits that might have prevented me from being accepeted to jobs for many years and also might have got me fired:Being a loner. I have the ability to be social but not too much. I have difficulty attending social meetings but I try to be friendly with people.Having a strong will, being rebellious, determined, and independent. I dropped out of a bona fide high school and I always drop out of bona fide schools. You need to attend bona fide schools to get jobs in the academy (I have a Ph.D). Throughout my studies at university, I had not attended boring classes. I am a rule breaker.Being autodidactic: teaching myself physics and mathematics, and being able to teach myself all sorts of things. People don't accept this.Having too much emotional empathy and being sensitive to people. I am sensitive to other people and have an extremely high sense of justice and fairness. I am intense in helping other people but they are not so intense in helping me…. But I burn bridges with people because I do not fit in and they reject “Good doctors” (i. e. Dr. Shaun Murphy). Dr. Murphy says in the “Good Doctor”: "There is a long and dusty trail littered with people who have underestimated me". Precisely.I have a sense of humor which people find hard to understand, and I am child-like.I show attention to detail and I also tend to correct mistakes I find in other people's papers.I have difficulty understanding that I have embarrassed people and they have difficulty understanding me. I am saying what I think, and am unable to hide my feelings. I am overly direct and frank. Dr. Murphy was asked: "Do you always talk like that? Just say whatever you're thinking when you're thinking it?" And he answered: "Yes. It's good to be honest". "I have autism, it's part of who I am". So, people are never going to crowd in our corner. But people tell Dr. Murphy that he is smart, brutally honest, has no regard to social convention, and has a problem being a leader; that he is facetious, he can't understand what anyone means. He can't express himself like an adult. His apparently robotic voice is not a charming affectation. Yeah, but I don’t have a robotic voice.I constantly feel I am taken advantage of because I trust people, and they insult me.I have a very good mastery of Einstein’s classical general relativity, and I am engaging in my special interest which is Einstein and relativity, and people are jealous. But this is the kind of obsessive behavior that is common for autism. And part of being obssesive is being highly imaginative and inventive. That is, I am highly creative and have a burst of ideas in my head. I am able to concentrate on my work for a long period of time without eating and drinking.I have skills that are much higher than those my job requires. I am not a professor. I have a lot of setbacks and very few successes.My academic papers are often times not conventional. I am not writing papers with a group of scholars. I am not part of a group of scholars. It’s not because I don’t want to be part of a group of scholars.I misinterpret the implied meaning of things and take at face value what people tell me, and I overreact and over-analyze situations. I don’t understand the unwritten social rules and ask embarrassing questions. I am socially naïve, and gullible, and I believe what people tell me. Consequently, I am taken advantage of and have no understanding of how to get on with important people. For many years, I was vulnerable to bullying. My name has been conspicuously absent from the list of speakers of conferences and seminars. I felt that people picked on me and I felt great indignation. I have been a recluse for many years, spending a lot of time alone in my room. I thought that I would not get any academic position because it involves social and political skills. I don't know how to grovel and don’t know whether one actually needs to grovel to bigwigs.I prefer wearing something casual over an elegant outfit.I know I am right but I don’t know how I know this. I have this intuition, six sense…. I also have a very good visual memory.I try to mask my real personality traits.

Einstein wrote in "Physics and Reality":13 Consider a mechanical system consisting oftwo partial systems A and B which interact with each other only during a limited time.ψ is the wavefunction before their interaction. One performs measurements on A anddetermines A's state. Then B's ψ function of the partial system B is determined fromthe measurement made, and from the ψ function of the total system. Thisdetermination gives a result which depends upon which of the observables of A havebeen measured (coordinates or momenta). That is, depending upon the choice ofobservables of A to be measured, according to quantum mechanics we have to assigndifferent quantum states ψB and ψB' to B. These quantum states are different from oneanother

The EPR paper was not written by Einstein. In a 1935 letter to Schrödinger Einsteinwrote, "For reasons of language this [paper] was written by Podolsky after manydiscussions. But still it has not come out as well as I really wanted; on the contrary,the main point was, so to speak, buried by the erudition".12

According to the EPR 1935 paper, it seems that Einstein favored a ψ-epistemic localinterpretation. However, Einstein's correspondence after 1935 on EPR, or in hispublications on EPR such as a 1936 paper "Physics and Reality", reveal that Einsteinruled out locality for ψ-ontic hidden variable theories. Indeed the only realisticinterpretation of quantum states that could possibly be local is ψ-epistemic, but the ψ-ontic model must be non-local.11

Hence, "if the quantum state is a physical property of the system and apparatus, it ishard to avoid the conclusion that each macroscopically different component has adirect counterpart in reality".20

PBR cite the above paragraph fromEinstein's 1935 letter to Schrödinger saying that for the same state of B there are twoequally justified ψB"

But note that the general ideathat two distinct quantum states may describe the same state of reality has a longhistory going back to Einstein. For example, in a letter to Schrödinger containing avariant of the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) argument, Einstein argues fromlocality to the conclusion that [... quoting Einstein's argument]. In this version of theargument, Einstein really is concerned with the idea that there are two distinctquantum states for the same reality, and not with the idea that there are two differentstates of reality corresponding to the same quantum state (the more commonlyunderstood notion of incompleteness)".

In a previous version of their ArXiv paper PBR speak more clearly: 23As far as we are aware, the precise formalisation of our question first appeared inHarrigan and Spekkens, where it is attributed to Hardy.

. Indeed PBR are aware of this possibility: "ThePBR theorem only holds for systems that have 'real physical state' – not necessarilycompletely described by quantum theory, but objective and independent of theobserver. This assumption only needs to hold for systems that are isolated, and notentangled with other systems. Nonetheless, this assumption, or some part of it, wouldbe denied by instrumentalist approaches to quantum theory, wherein the quantumstate is merely a calculational tool for making predictions concerning macroscopicmeasurement outcomes".25

However, the PBR theorem does not rule "Bohr" who believes in quantum physicsthat is epistemic complete (Wavefunctions are epistemic, but there is no underlyingontic hidden variable states theory24

It seems that the PBR theorem does not end the century-old debate about the ontologyof quantum states. It does not prove, with mathematical certitude, that the onticinterpretation is right and the epistemic one is wrong

"The general notion that two distinct quantum states may describe the same state ofreality, however, has a long history. For example, in a letter to Schrödinger containing avariant of the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) argument",

Hypotheses which seem plausible before doing an experiment should, properly,often be rejected in the light of the new evidence. This was our experience withClauser and Horne’s(33) hypothesis of no enhancement at a beam splitte

We wish Jean-Pierre Vigier a very happy birthday

e state our conclusions,namely that the photon is obsolete, that light is nothing but waves, and thatall wave fields fluctuate

The explanation of how detectors are able to extract signals from the verylarge zeropoint background is a very difficult problem which we have not yetmanaged to solve. The day that theoretical physicists begin seriously to confrontit is when they will begin, perhaps, to recover the respect of the rest of thescientific community. Despite our failure to resolve it,

But all modesof the field are already present before the intervention of the coherent beam andthe nonlinear crystal. The down conversion is, more accurately, a correlatedamplification of certain modes of the zeropoint field.

The current namefor what occurs in the crystal is parametric down conversion but this is yetanother example (like “inflexion”) of a bad concept - the “photon” - giving riseto a misleading name and description; it describes an incoming photon of thecoherent beam as converting into two completely new photons

A beamsplitter does not simply split an incoming wave into two parts; it mixes togethertwo incoming waves, one of them from the “vacuum”, to give the two outgoingwaves (see Figure 1)

hese were interpreted by Grangier, Roger and Aspectas evidence that the whole “photon” goes into one or other of the outgoingchannels

With such a description it is not possible to explain theanticorrelation data;

If we consider the “vacuum” to be empty, then it seemsalmost unavoidable to assume that the intensity of any incoming classical signalis equal to the sum of the intensities in the outgoing channels, and also that thedetection probability in both channels is proportional to the signal intensitiesin those channels.

The real zeropoint field plays a crucial role in explaining how purely wave phe-nomena may be misinterpreted as evidence of corpuscular behaviour. Recogni-tion of its role would be a convincing vindication of Max Planck(16), becausehe introduced the concept of the zeropoint field precisely in order to opposeEinstein’s Lichtquanten, which were the forerunners of photons.

If we wish to represent the output of a real atomic source, we must takeaccount not only of the fact that each atomic light signal occupies a finite timeinterval (typically about 5ns), but also that neither the time nor the directionof the emitted radiation can be controlled. (We are advocating a return to anunambiguously wave description of light, so any signal is emitted into a range ofdirections. Nevertheless, the spatial distribution of the signal will be influenced,for example, by the atom’s charge distribution at the time of emission; thiscannot be controlled.)

But we find it amazing that anyone(19) shouldtry to discuss such questions as locality and causality on the basis of waveswhich fill the whole of space and time! The single-mode representation of a realatomic signal is clearly inadequate

As for Fock states, represented, for example, by equation(7), we consider that the claims to have observed them are incorrect, and thatdiscussions on such exotic properties (quantum nonlocality, entanglement etc.),which such states would have, if they were to exist, are misguided

With respect to the “nonclassical” states of the light field currently widelyreported as having been observed, our response is that something approximatingthe squeezed vacuum, as described by equation (6), has been observed; this,however, according to our new classification, is a classical state, though notGlauber-classical

We now propose to extend this judgement to the light emit-ted in atomic-cascade and parametric-down-conversion processes, as well as themicrowave radiation contained in cavities.2

We believe that this step has already beentaken, but not fully acknowledged, by a substantial part of the quantum-opticscommunity. For example, three review articles (2−4) on light squeezing makeextensive use of phase-space diagrams, and one of them(3) states explicitly thatthe photon description of the light field is not helpful in the understanding ofthe phenomenon

the point of view,which has been anathematized by the Copenhagen school, that electromagneticwaves are real waves, in ordinary space and time, having both amplitude andphase

Yes, quantum mechanics is elegant, but only as long as it applies tosystems with a few degrees of freedom. Light fields have infinite degrees offreedom, and a mature treatment of them requires the considerably less elegantapparatus of quantum field theory - not only less elegant, but bristling with allsorts of problems associated with divergences and renormalizations.

We conclude that the “photon” is an obsolete concept, and that its misusehas resulted in a mistaken recognition of “nonlocal” phenomena.

5 Save this question. Show activity on this post. If we look at the Japanese word, there is no "Fujiyama" at all. I have a hunch that this was a mistake of a translator who transliterated 富士山 wrongly due to the kanji "yama" reading. Yet if it's a mistake, why was it so widely spreaded? Wikipedia refers to "Fujiyama" as a disambiguation to "Mount Fuji" and I even saw a Japanese book with the title "FUJIYAMA". Was it really someone's mistake or Japanese has some variation about this particular mountain?For example, here in Russia many people consider "Fujiyama" normal name where those who study Japanese consider it as a terrible inaccuracy of a translator. Where is the truth?

The name “Fuji-san” is a common way to refer to Mount Fuji in Japan. In Japanese, “Fuji” is written as 富士, and “san” is how the kanji character 山 (yama) is pronounced (on’yomi), which translates to “mountain.” So, “Fuji-san” essentially means “Mount Fuji.”

A prediction is validated by two things: a future event (the actualmeasurement whose result is required to confirm the prediction) and the right past choice(that makes possible the prediction).

A counterfactual is validatedby two things: a past event (the actual measurement whose result is required to confirmthe counterfactual) and the right future choice of measurement (that makes possible thetheoretical deduction)

In the EPR case a different choice of what tomeasure on one side has “an influence on the very conditions which define the possibletypes of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system” on the other side.

n EPR the choiceof what to measure on one side influences not the ability to talk counterfactually about apast measurement on the other side, but the ability to make a prediction about a futuremeasurement on the other side.

Stapp’s argument does not demonstrate nonlocality because that choice of what to mea-sure on the left alters no thing on the right — i.e. it is “not a mechanical disturbance.”What it does alter is what we can meaningfully say about events on the right — i.e. it is aninfluence on the conditions that permit us to make a meaningful counterfactual statement.

n deny-ing the existence of a “mechanical disturbance” while maintaining the existence of an “influ-ence” Bohr is in no way asserting the presence of a mysterious non-mechanical disturbance(“quantum nonlocality”)

But that choice on the left does have an influence on thecondition that defines the very meaning of counterfactual statements about what mighthave happened earlier on the right.

T]here is . . . no question of a mechanical disturbance of the systemunder investigation . . . [but] there is essentially the question of an influ-ence on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictionsregarding the future behavior of the system.This fragment of his longer article is virtually the entire point of his earlier very briefresponse,8

he puts it this way:It is true that in the measurements under consideration any direct me-chanical interaction of the system and the measuring agencies is ex-cluded, but a closer examination reveals that the procedure of measure-ments has an essential influence on the conditions on which the verydefinition of the physical quantities in question rests.

Bearing this in mind, consider Stapp’s fifth proposition, which translated out of hisformal notation into everyday language states (in atemporal terms) that(I) Whenever the choice of measurement on the left is L2, if the measure-ment on the right is R2 and gives +, then if R1 were instead performedthe result would be −.

hese areassertions about the outcomes of four different possible experiments (12, 22, 21, and 22)only one of which can actually be done. At most one of them can be valid

L1+ implies R1−

L1+ implies R2+

L1− =⇒/ R1 − . (13

The correlations in the outcomes of the four possible pairs ofmeasurements are encapsulated in the two-particle state, given (to within a normalizationconstant) by|Ψ〉 = |L1+, R1−〉 − |L2−, R2+〉 〈L2−, R2 + |L1+, R1−〉. (1)Here a state such as |L1+, R1−〉 indicates a simultaneous eigenstate of the commutingobservables L1 and R1 with eigenvalue + on the left and − on the right

independent

My interest here is inthe remarkable way Bohr’s critique of EPR is clarified by applying it to Stapp’s argument

W. Unruh identifies essentially the same weakness (in his discussion of Stapp’s“LOC2”) in “Is quantum mechanics non-local?”, quant-ph 9710032

[T]heoretical assumptions often allow one to say with certainty, on thebasis of the outcome of a certain experiment, what “would have hap-pened” if an alternative possible apparatus had been used.

Statements of this general kind are commonplace in physics: Theoryoften allows one to deduce from the outcome of certain measurements ona system what the outcome of some alternative possible measurementswould necessarily be

2 Lucien Hardy, “Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and Lorentz invariantrealistic theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981-2984 (1992).1

Many of Stapp’s propositions contain counterfactual conditionals — statements aboutthe outcome of experiments that might have been performed but were not

Henry Stapp1 has subjected the strange quantum correlations discovered by LucienHardy2 to a cunning logical analysis

I point out thatthe reasoning leading to this conclusion relies on an essential ambiguityregarding the meaning of the expression “statement that refers only tophenomena confined to an earlier time” when such a statement containscounterfactual conditionals

5. Karl Popper, “Quantum mechanics without ‘The Observer’ ”, in Quan-tum Theory and Reality, ed. Mario Bunge, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1967)

. Arkady Plotnitsky, Complementarity, Duke University Press (1994),172-190.8

He used the ‘essentialambiguity’ that he identified, which concerned what he viewed as an overlyrestrictive view of the meaning of “without in any way disturbing a system”,to enlarge the meaning of “disturb”, not to curtail its meaning by arbitrarilylimiting the scope of logical reasoning

the faster-than-light influence that Bohr deduced from ananalysis of possible knowledge-based predictions is essentially the same as theone that I deduced from an analysis of the Hardy experiment. However, thesophistication of the Hardy experiment, in comparison to the simple EPR ex-periment, allows the nature of this influence to be exposed now more clearlythan before

This result, whichis what the analysis of the Hardy experiment shows, gives solid support toBohr’s position as opposed to EPR

But this means that one cannot pass from thefact that one can measure either q1 or p1, and hence determine either q2 orp2, to the conclusion that both results are simultaneously well defined

wouldmean that in that case connections between Nature’s choices of the outcomesof measuring q2 or alternatively p2 cannot be assumed not to depend uponwhether q1 or p1 is measured

Mermin gets involved in questions of definitions and meanings, as didBohr. But Bohr had to involve himself with such matters because he wasconfronted by a characterization of “physical reality” that was basically aliento what arises from his own knowledge-based approach. Hence he was forced,in effect, to redefine this key term to bring it into line with his own philosophy.

A main objective of my work was to rid the argument of these “real-ity” questions that have led into a philosophical quadmire of interminabledisputes

The central question in judging the adequacy of Bohr’s reply is whetherthe faster-than-light influence that he claims exists, within his knowledge-based framework of thinking, can be both sufficiently real to block the ap-plication of the EPR criterion of physical reality, yet sufficiently unreal toproduce no mechanical disturbance. That is the problem that troubled Bell,and probably everyone else who is troubled by Bohr’s argument

By this argument Bohr disputes the key EPR claim that performinga measurement on one of two correlated—but currently non-interacting—systems does not “disturb” the other.So the point of Bohr’s argument is to assert that within his knowledge-based and prediction-oriented Copenhagen framework there IS an action-at-a-distance influence, and the existence of this action-at-a-distance influenceblocks the EPR (implicit) claim that there is none, thereby blocking appli-cation of the EPR criterion of reality

hus, from Bohr’s perspective, in which the meaningof “physical reality” is tied to our acquiring the knowledge needed to makepredictions about it, measuring q1 does disturb the other system because itproduces “an influence on the very conditions which define the possible typesof predictions regarding future behavior of the [other] system.” Thus if wemeasure q1 then we cannot make a prediction about p2

Applied to the particular example that EPR considered,this consideration was shown to entail that if one sets up the system so thatq1 + q2 and p1 − p2 are both well defined, as EPR specify, then one can mea-sure either q1 or p1, but not both, and hence become able to predict eitherq2 or p2 but not both.

predictions about theoutcomes of our later possible observations, then performing one of the earlierpossible measurements may exclude the possibility of performing an alterna-tive possible one

Plotnit-sky suggests that the reason that Bell does not understand Bohr’s argumentis perhaps that he refuses to read the full argument that gives meaning tothese important phrases. I am confident that Bell, a thorough scientist, didexamine Bohr’s full argument carefully before publically criticizing it

contains an ambiguity

The meaning of Bohr’s argument has been much debated. Mermin citesPlotnitsky’s book7 for a “thoughtful critique of Bell’s statements about Bohr’sviews”. Plotnitsky roundly condemns Bell as completely failing to under-stand Bohr. Bell himself admits to not understanding Bohr’s argument, butwith the implication that Bohr’s argument does not make sense

to those have difficulty understanding Bohr’s reply

This situation, in which there is a subtle action-at-a-distance influence,but no simple direct one, certainly brings to mind Bohr’s basic claim in hisreply to EPR:[T]here is... no question of a mechanical disturbance of the system underinvestigation...[but] there is essentially the question of an influence on thevery conditions which define the possible types of predictions regarding thefuture behavior of the system.In both cases there is a denial of any (proof of a) direct mechanical distur-bance of events in the single actually occurring situation, but an affirmationof the existence of an influence of some kind.

However, the term“influence events” contains an essential ambiguity.

The meaning and validity of Bohr’s reply has been muchdebated. Karl Popper5 claims that Einstein, not Bohr, won that famousbattle. John Bell6 likewise has questioned the rationality of Bohr’s argument.

he same as the nonlocal influ-ence deduced by Bohr, and used by him to block the application ofthe criterion of physical reality proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, andRosen

he nonlocal influence deduced from theanalysis of the Hardy experiment

I agree that “the Hardy-based analysis fortifies Bohr’sposition” [p. 7, Abstract], but only because it makes one take seriously the urgent need tofind a flaw in the apparently cogent reasoning of EPR

Whether Bohr knew in his bones that there were no elements of reality

10. Lucien Hardy and John Bell before him fatally undermine the position of EPR.

what I (but not Stapp) believe to be the nature of Bohr’sreply to EPR

As I read Bohr, he too was broadly interestedin questions of definition and meaning

the influence that Bohr does identify: an influence onthe possibility of making valid predictions

Nowhere, however, do the terms“nonlocal” or “faster-than-light” or “action-at-a-distance” appear in Bohr’s reply to EPR

Iwas strongly reminded of the importance of utmost caution in all questions of terminologyand dialectics.3

for the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the particle's spin is not an intrinsic property of the particle; instead spin is, so to speak, in the wavefunction of the particle in relation to the particular device being used to measure the spin. This is an illustration of what is sometimes referred to as contextuality and is related to naive realism about operators.[54] Interpretationally, measurement results are a deterministic property of the system and its environment, which includes information about the experimental setup including the context of co-measured observables; in no sense does the system itself possess the property being measured, as would have been the case in classical physics.

Since its original proposal, the view has evolved and attracted new followers in the physics community, but has been less warmly received by philosophers. Many, it seems, share the view of Hagar (2003) that “Fuchs’ ‘thin’ realism, and the entire ‘fog from the north’ which inspires it, are nothing but instrumentalism in disguise” (p.772).Footnote 1

Below is a philosophical reflection (not only for the Zotero team).We are still able to perform J.S. Bach music because music notation and instruments have not changed whithin 3 centuries. In computer science, every 6 months, software are upgraded, functionnalities and encoding very often change too. How can we work in such conditions? How can our human society survive in such a moving context ?

Put this in your address barchrome://flags/Then go to or copy paste in searchInsecure origins treated as secureThen enabled..

Dellu November 2, 2023 edited November 2, 2023 Zotero-file can be downloaded from this fork: https://github.com/DesBw/zotero-file

Dellu November 2, 2023 This fork has up to version 0.2.1: https://github.com/lychichem/zotero-file/tags

tim820 October 30, 2023 @knutatle you just use the standard Zotero routine: Tools\Manage Attachments\Convert Linked Files to Stored Files.

An integrated PDF reader, by contrast, was by far the most frequent reason people gave for not using Zotero, and there's been an overwhelmingly positive response to the new features in Zotero 6. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but your experience of using Zotero is not universal.

I don't need a fancy pdf reader like that in Mendeley, so the deep coupling of the new note editor under the hook cannot be justified by the introducing of that reader.

You could use the excuse that not many feedbacks about table were provided. But you cannot eliminate the possibility that most heavy users may have no interest in your years-long beta development at all, like me.