From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl   
      
   On 2/4/2018 6:57 PM, SEKI wrote:   
   > On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 11:11:15 PM UTC+9, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   >> On 2/4/2018 12:26 PM, SEKI wrote:   
     ..   
   >>> You mentioned entanglement, which postulates two-particle state.   
   >>>   
   >>> Consider a photon pair.   
   >>> Quantum wave of paired photon system (if any) is to swell at twice   
   >>> the speed of light,   
   >>   
   >> What do you mean?! Quantum field theory is restricted to the   
   >> ordinary limit of the speed of light!   
   >>   
   >>>     and is to metamorphose instantaneously.   
   >>   
   >> Who tells you it will metamorphose instantaneously?   
   >>   
   >>> I cannot believe in such a system.   
   >>   
   >> Then why do you say it exists?!   
   >   
   > I just mean that entanglement between two photons is considered to be   
   > illusion. It is imaginable, but I consider it unrealistic like   
   > superposition of live-cat state and dead-cat state.   
      
   But your arguments are in fact against the wave function   
   collapse hypothesis (so in a way they are in favor of the   
   eternal superposition alternative).   
      
   > Considering that no or, at most, negligible interaction is possible   
   > between photons, and that no restriction is imposed on superposition   
   > of quantum waves of photons, which are bosons, isn't it uncontradictable?   
      
   Considering those things, the wave function collapse in two   
   distant positions, with the statistics that QM would require,   
   which violate Bell's inequality, is difficult to accept. It is   
   even completely untenable in my view if we also consider the   
   other problems related to it.   
      
   Which means that eternal entanglement as an alternative, however   
   illusionary or unrealistic you may find it, becomes the most   
   reasonable alternative!   
      
   > By the way, you seem to have an absolute trust in quantum field theory.   
      
   That was not implied, I just based my reply on this theory   
   since it is the theory we now have, and the one you will have   
   to compete against if you have another.   
      
   > I wrote "I acknowledge that, in the field of physics, there can be no   
   > theory without any assumption, and every theory has finite scope of   
   > application and is only approximately true."   
   > In fact, quantum field theory does not comprehend zero-point oscillations.   
      
   Nonsense. Quantum field theory has a well-defined concept of   
   the vacuum state (that's even an important difference with the   
   "old quantum theory", I would say).   
      
   But I won't deny, however, that there are still difficulties.   
   The vacuum state for interacting fields, in infinite space,   
   described as a continuum (without discretizing space) does   
   have the problem of Haag's theorem. That's true..   
      
     ..   
   >> The only question that (some) people have is what happens   
   >> if the particles meet their measuring devices! Everything   
   >> happening before that moment is no point of discussion.   
   >   
   > Now, I understand that you do not understand the total context.   
      
   What then, is unclear to you before the point where the   
   particles reach their detectors?   
      
   Do you mean you don't even want to except the mere existence of   
   a pair of particles in a combined spin state? Or do you want to   
   reject the entire idea that anything can be in a superposition?   
      
   That would lead us to very radical changes of quantum mechanics   
   (perhaps beyond the possibility of saving any part of it..)   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)