I continue this checking of the paradoxes in theoretical physics. Now when I already know how much cheating has been done in history, it does not really surprise me that something fishy had been done in theoretical physics back in those days. It seems that some of the results should be taken with salt.
I looked at the EPR paradox as formulated by John Bell in 1964, the original EPR formulation seems to have been a total misunderstanding of conjugated properties in particle-waves, i.e., waves do not have precise values for conjugate properties and they cannot be precisely measured from two entangled particles as they do not exist in precise sense in waves. But Bell’s formulation is correct. I already did show in the previous post that Bell’s Theorem is wrong as he used a wrong normalization for detector directions:
But this short note did not prove that the EPR problem is not a mystery. This time I looked at the problem better. I show in the following short note that the correlation of spin is easily explained without any mystery by the spin in the x-direction. That is, nothing is left of the EPR paradox.
It seems that Bell’s original paper, and all treatments in the web, forgot the second basis vector from spin zero space. Spin zero space is one-dimensional, yes, but for a single state. In an entangled state it is two-dimensional, but it does not appear as a two-dimensional mix of the basis vectors. It appears as one-dimensional selection of one or the other of the basis vectors because these basis vectors have opposite spin to the x-direction and a particle must have spin + or -, a half number, not a mix. Indeed, a mix could make an electron with spin zero or spin one. That is not a fermion.
Here is my short note, again very simple math:
About this fishy business. Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen created the EPR paradox. Niels Bohr opposed it. John von Neumann and David Bohm discussed it. It become famous. I was explained how it, as verified by Bell and experiments, really shows how quantum mechanics is strange. Now, all this is rubbish. The explanations are very simple, there is nothing strange here. It looks like the people wanted to create a remarkable result out of thin air. The whole topic must be taken with salt.
I will look further. This is starting to look like a typical occupied zone issue.
4 Comments
Hello J2;
This is an amazing article.
I have read about this controversy between Einstein and Niels Bohr (not that I understand the mathematical proof; I would need to spend many days on it).It seemed that time and later experiences proved Bohr right, but your conclusions are different.
Your contributions are so remarkable: I can’t believe that you cannot share your work with theoretical Physics specialists.
I was thinking of researchers in countries like Russia, which used to be strong in Physics, without the usual “tribal” control? All the best to you, with kindest regards.
Thanks Iris. It is amazing how they managed to cheat everybody, but they have done it in so many issues, JFK, Holocaust, 911… Hope to meet you one day in some discussion thread.
Hello J2;
I hope all is well.
I have been reading an interesting article in the “New Scientist” about the alleged detection of gravitational waves made in 2015. This detection resulted in a Nobel Prize attributed in 2017. An independent team of physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute, however, have put in question the detection method. A problem involving the treatment of noise.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2184360-ligo-to-publish-new-paper-in-wake-of-new-scientist-investigation/
The full article is for subscribers. I will scan end email it to you.
All the best, kind regards.
Hi Iris,
So nice to hear from you. I would very much like to read the article. With the EPR and Bell papers everything is so far fine, that is, they are submitted and not returned yet.
Thanks and all the best,
Jorma