Page first posted Oct 23 2014
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 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.
The Contents of this Page
In this page, I first direct your attention toward 2 very simple laws regarding statistical distributions, which I call 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 nonlocality is a concept that is used to vilify irrefutable mathematics (conventional mathematics); yet more importantly nonlocality defies all logic and more specifically relativity logic.
The assertion "nonlocality is not" summarize pretty well the intent of this internet page!
Tossing laws
Let's call 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; :
  1. 1st tossing law: Any 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. 2nd tossing law: The total number of combinations is precisely equal to the number of properties to the power of objects on-hand at time of throw.
Tossing 3 dice at once, provided the toss is repeated a great number of times, yields precisely 216 combinations that is 63 (2nd tossing law); each combination made of 3 properties (1st tossing law).
The objects on-hand, when considered as a whole, are referred to a system.
The SUR (Statistics Underlying Reality) Lab Experiments
Now for you to run here is an experiment which illustrates the 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

Enter the number of objects tossed at once:       Enter the object properties separated by COMMAS:       When ready press:

The Entanglement Jumble
A poll is conducted as follows:
  • Do you rent or own your home?
  • Do you have a TV?
  • Do you have a COMPUTER?
And the data collected
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, 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.
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

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.

  1. 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 23 = 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.
  2. Furthermore here is an argument that corroborates above and on which even physicists should agree as it is based on scientific consensus.
    1. Starting with above 8 items list,
    2. then using classical mathematics,
    3. 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.
    The conclusion is clear, defining the state of the particles (the 8 items list) in terms of the 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 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 32=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!
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 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

Enter the the number of positions of the detector switches (number of objects):      

When ready press: