Page first posted Oct 23 2014

According to EPR quantum mechanics is not complete; EPR suggested hidden variables were needed to complete the theory.

Nowadays the consensus among physicists is that EPR is wrong; there is no hidden variables; and a new and controversial concept that of*nonlocality* is backing that stand.

*Locality* involves a link between cause and effect; *nonlocality* is a situation in which both cause and link disappeared, the effect pops out of the measure.
**tossing** laws.

Following are lab experiments, for you to run, in which the**tossing** laws unfold right onto your computer screen.

Then I use these**tossing** laws to show that, in the entanglement case, an error of appreciation led physicists to the conclusion that conventional mechanics contradicts quantum mechanics.

That error of appreciation led me in turn to refer as*nonlocality is not* that entire process through which physicists show that conventional mechanics contradicts quantum mechanics.

The expression "*nonlocality is not*" is definitely appropriate as as it rests on conventional mathematics that do not coincide to reality! And more importantly *nonlocality* defies all logic.

The assertion "*nonlocality is not*" summarize pretty well the intent of this internet page!
*properties* the 6 facets of a dice.

Toss 1 dice, a great number of times, you exclusively get a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6; that is for each toss you get precisely 1*property* out of the 6 *properties* inherent to a dice.

Toss 2 dice at once, a great number of times, you get 36 possibilities or*combinations* made of 2 *properties* each, such as 1,1 or 1,2 or 1,3 etc.

As a general rule the dice held on hand before the throw and tossed altogether, are called*objects*; 2 fundamental and very simple laws that I call **tossing** laws emerge; :
*combinations* that is 6^{3} (2^{nd} **tossing** law); each *combination* made of 3 *properties* (1^{st} **tossing** law).

The*objects* on-hand, when considered as a whole, are referred to a *system*.
**tossing** laws.

Entering the*number of objects* tossed at once (either a number of dice, or a number of coins, or a number of particle electrons etc.) and the *properties* of that *object*, the SUR lab experiment returns the distribution governed by the **tossing** laws.

Properties entered in the SUR lab experiment must be separated by commas; the 6*properties* of a dice are entered as *1,2,3,4,5,6* with no punctuation what so ever before or after the list; the 2 *properties* of a coin can be entered as: *head,tail* with same comment.
To start with, run the experiment with a *number of objects* on hand of your choice and the list of *properties*: 1,2,3,4,5,6 that fits a dice.

**SUR Lab Experiment**

In the entanglement experiments, pairs of electrons in great number are thrown at 2 detectors.

Each electron is considered to have a property,*what that property is does not matter; it is enough that the various states of each particle can be divided into eight types: RRR, RRG, RGR, RGG, GRR, GRG, GGR, and GGG*. Quote from American Journal of Physics Mermin paper page 942 middle of left column.

The way one gets at these 8 types or configurations is well explained by Reinhold through a down-to-earth example (Exhibit A). For the young generations I changed Reinhold VCR's and CD's into TV's and COMPUTER's.

Noting that “rent” is “no ownership”, and changing all “no's” (“rent” being now a “no”) within the 8 titles listed in Exhibit A into R's and the remaining into G's, one gets the 8 items list Exhibit A-1.

Now compare that list to Mermin's list: RRR, RRG, RGR, RGG, GRR, GRG, GGR, and GGG; they are identical. That list is referred as the 8 items list in the following.

If one goes on with this line of reasoning one ends in contradiction with quantum mechanics mathematics and experiments.

Without going into any further demonstration though, this 8 items list is sufficient to assert that*nonlocality is not*.

*combination* of the 8 items list being made of 3 *properties* that 8 items list coincides to the tossing of 3 *objects* (the 3 *positions* of a switch of a detector), having each 2 *properties* (R and G flashes); that 8 items list is instead used by physicists to characterize a *single object* (an electron); that is inappropriate as a *single object* provides combinations made of *single property*.

Note that when the detector switches positions are considered for the measure proper, their combinations are 9 (see table section**IV. The proof** in Gary Felder paper); and that is correct as 2 *objects* (2 switches or detectors) having each 3 *properties* (the 3 positions) provide 3^{2}=9 *combinations*.

As far as the electrons are concerned, the 8 items list is for sure a misdeal or an error of appreciation.

Between you and me, even though I thought a lot about it, I could not figure out how such a misdeal has been thought, let alone has been accepted by all to this day!

In the end*nonlocality* is fiction.

My personal interpretation is that there is no mathematical proof that indetermination or chance rules at subatomic scale.

*Nonlocality* is overwhelmed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen mathematics, which prevented it ahead of its time!

In this virtual illustration the electron QUANTUM STATE is set with the SUR function above, in which the*number of objects* used is the *number of positions of the detector switch*.

You only have to enter a value for that detector switch*number of positions* (the *number of objects*). In all cases the *properties* are R and G, and are automatically set by the simulation program; as such you do not have to enter them.

To start with, and in order to make a run using the 8 items list, I suggest you enter a 3 for the*number of positions* (also the *number of objects*).

The results are displayed in table format along Felder's paper and method (section**IV. The proof**).

Go ahead: enter a 3 and hit the Submit button.

Even though this virtual experiment illustrates the consensus prevailing in science, it is meaningless as the reality of the electron behavior is (just as in science) ignored in the code of the simulation.

Besides titillating one's curiosity, I am well aware that, just as the consensus prevailing in science is meaningless, this simulation is useless!

**"Nonlocality is not" lab**

Deciphering the Entanglement Jumble: Nonlocality is not!

Background

Entanglement gave rise to fierce controversy, the origin of which is a famous paper written in 1934 by Einstein, Podoslsky and Rosen, referred since as EPR.According to EPR quantum mechanics is not complete; EPR suggested hidden variables were needed to complete the theory.

Nowadays the consensus among physicists is that EPR is wrong; there is no hidden variables; and a new and controversial concept that of

The Contents of this Page

In this page, I first direct your attention toward 2 very simple laws regarding statistical distributions, which I call Following are lab experiments, for you to run, in which the

Then I use these

That error of appreciation led me in turn to refer as

The expression "

The assertion "

Tossing laws

Let's call Toss 1 dice, a great number of times, you exclusively get a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6; that is for each toss you get precisely 1

Toss 2 dice at once, a great number of times, you get 36 possibilities or

As a general rule the dice held on hand before the throw and tossed altogether, are called

**1**: Any^{st}tossing law*combination*is configured with a*number of properties*precisely equal to the*number of objects*on-hand at time of throw.

Even though made of*properties*, the configuration of any*combination*is independent of the*number of properties*that makes the*object*.**2**: The total number of^{nd}tossing law*combinations*is precisely equal to the*number of properties*to the power of*objects*on-hand at time of throw.

The

The SUR (Statistics Underlying Reality) Lab Experiments

Now for you to run here is an experiment which illustrates the Entering the

Properties entered in the SUR lab experiment must be separated by commas; the 6

The Entanglement Jumble

A poll is conducted as follows:

will be returned as percentages

for each of the following titles:

- Do you rent or own your home?
- Do you have a TV?
- Do you have a COMPUTER?

will be returned as percentages

for each of the following titles:

- Rent and noTV and noCOMPUTER
- Rent and noTV and COMPUTER
- Rent and TV and noCOMPUTER
- Rent and TV and COMPUTER
- Own and noTV and noCOMPUTER
- Own and noTV and COMPUTER
- Own and TV and noCOMPUTER
- Own and TV and COMPUTER

Exhibit A

In the entanglement experiments, pairs of electrons in great number are thrown at 2 detectors.

Each electron is considered to have a property,

Column# | ||||

1 | 2 | 3 | ||

R | and | R | and | R |

R | and | R | and | G |

R | and | G | and | R |

R | and | G | and | G |

G | and | R | and | R |

G | and | R | and | G |

G | and | G | and | R |

G | and | G | and | G |

Exhibit A-1

The 8 items list

Noting that “rent” is “no ownership”, and changing all “no's” (“rent” being now a “no”) within the 8 titles listed in Exhibit A into R's and the remaining into G's, one gets the 8 items list Exhibit A-1.

Now compare that list to Mermin's list: RRR, RRG, RGR, RGG, GRR, GRG, GGR, and GGG; they are identical. That list is referred as the 8 items list in the following.

If one goes on with this line of reasoning one ends in contradiction with quantum mechanics mathematics and experiments.

Without going into any further demonstration though, this 8 items list is sufficient to assert that

- As just mentioned this 8 items list describes the electron; Mermin expresses that (alleged) fact in even more details (quote): “
*A particle whose state is of type RGG, for example, will always cause its detector to flash red for setting 1 of the switch, green for setting 2, and green for setting 3.*” - I show next that is a gross misdeal, such a list cannot apply to a single
*particle*at all!

- According to the first
**tossing**law, when the*combinations*are formatted out of 3*properties*, which is the case of the 8 items list in question, 3*objects*are involved.

*As such this 8 items list, should it characterizes the electrons as stated, characterizes 3**electrons*and not 2 electrons of a pair, let alone a single electron.

And to corroborate, when the*objects*count is 3 (as just demonstrated) and the*properties*count is 2 (in this case R and G) the number of*combinations*according to the second**tossing**law is 2^{3}= 8, which matches the list.

Applying the**tossing**laws to this list, one must admit that it can only be obtained with 3*objects*each having 2*properties*namely R and G; this list cannot represent a pair of 2 electrons let alone a single electron as done by Mermin.

The logic sustaining the superposition of incompatibles (or quantum state) is not valid and*nonlocality*which depends on it looses the only justification it had. - Furthermore here is an argument that corroborates above and on which even physicists should agree as it is based on scientific consensus.

- Starting with above 8 items list,
- then using classical mathematics,
- the general consensus is that that leads to an
*outcome*that contradicts experiments; here are links to famous articles and papers describing that whole process in length: N.D. Mermin, Arnold Reinhold, David R. Schneider, and Gary Felder.

*measures (the 3 positions of the switches)*is in contradiction with these very measures.

*Because classical mathematics (ii) is nevertheless irrefutable, the starting point (i) that is the 8 items list is wrong!*

Conclusion

Each Note that when the detector switches positions are considered for the measure proper, their combinations are 9 (see table section

As far as the electrons are concerned, the 8 items list is for sure a misdeal or an error of appreciation.

Between you and me, even though I thought a lot about it, I could not figure out how such a misdeal has been thought, let alone has been accepted by all to this day!

In the end

My personal interpretation is that there is no mathematical proof that indetermination or chance rules at subatomic scale.

Computer simulation illustrating that “ Nonlocality is not ”

The bare fact is that the QUANTUM STATE of an entangled pair (which is also the QUANTUM STATE of a single electron), according to science consensus, is based on the number of positions of the switch.In this virtual illustration the electron QUANTUM STATE is set with the SUR function above, in which the

You only have to enter a value for that detector switch

To start with, and in order to make a run using the 8 items list, I suggest you enter a 3 for the

The results are displayed in table format along Felder's paper and method (section

Go ahead: enter a 3 and hit the Submit button.

Even though this virtual experiment illustrates the consensus prevailing in science, it is meaningless as the reality of the electron behavior is (just as in science) ignored in the code of the simulation.

Besides titillating one's curiosity, I am well aware that, just as the consensus prevailing in science is meaningless, this simulation is useless!