The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for

*Experiments with***entangled photons**, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.

In other words, the Prize was awarded for showing that

**when questioning the idea of entangled photons with***Einstein was wrong**as if two photons/particles could be in instant contact/communication even if widely separated in space (thus seemingly violating Einstein's basic relativity postulate of the speed of light as maximal speed of propagation of physical effects).***spooky action at distance**,Einstein never accepted the canon of the

*Copenhagen Interpretation*CI of the new quantum mechanics dictated by Bohr and Born in the 1920s and still dominating, and so was expelled from the physics community along with Schrödinger as the inventor of the**.***Schrödinger equation**for the**Hydrogen atom*Einstein could not accept spooky action at distance nor the statistical interpretation in CI expressed with his famous

*. Schrödinger could not give up***God does not play dice***or***local reality***as a reality existing in***Anschaulichkeit***even if not observed by a human being or instrument.***three space dimensions**The controversy between Bohr/Born and Einstein/Schrödinger, that has never be reconciled, has had catastrofical consequences for the development of modern physics through the 20th century into our days. The 2022 Prize is an expression of the resulting collapse of reality behind string theory, extra dimensions, multiversa, dark matter/energy and black holes occupying the minds of physicists today with lofty promises of quantum computers from superposition and entanglement always far from realisation.

Quantum mechanics started in 1925 with Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom as a real physics continuum wave equation for a negatively charged one electron cloud under Coulomb attraction from a positively charged pointwise kernel/proton, expressed in a wave function $\Psi (x,t)$ depending on a three dimensional space variable $x$ and a time variable $t$, with the square of the wave function expressing charge density. This model showed precise agreement with the spectrum of Hydrogen as a formidable stunning success of theoretical physics and Schrödinger instantly rocketed to fame.

But the trouble started already with the Helium atom with two electrons. A quick solution directly presented itself as a direct mathematical generalisation to an atom with $N>1$ electrons simply by formulating a

**in a wave function $\Psi (x1,x2,..xN,t)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space variables $x1,x2,...,xN,$ as if each electron occupies its own three-dimensional space. A mathematician could make such a generalisation with a stroke of a pen, just like extending the real line into a space of any dimension in linear algebra. With such a wave function electrons are entangled unless the multi-dimensional wave function is a product of one-dimensional wave functions, which is too simple to work. Electron entanglement is thus directly ingrained ad hoc by definition through a truly multi-dimensional wave function, as well as superposition by linearity.***linear**multi-dimensional wave equation*The direct question confronting Schrödinger was if such an ad hoc formal mathematical generalisation could have any physical meaning? Schrödinger concluded that a wave depending on $3N$ space variables cannot be Anschaulich or represent any reality, and he could not accept Born's resort to a statistical interpretation, and so Schrödinger left quantum mechanics already at its start, or rather like Einstein was kicked out. It is the statistical interpretation of the wave function forced upon science from a multi-dimensional wave function, which is the root of all the unresolved troubles.

There we stand today: The holy grail of quantum mechanics is a linear multi-dimensional wave equation/function without local reality but with entanglement and spooky action at distance ingrained by construction, claimed to always be in exact agreement with observation, although uncomputable by multi-dimensionality. This is not something, whether you are physicist or not, which you can question, and it is then ironic that the 2022 Prize is given to experimental work initiated in the 1970s supposedly showing that Einstein was wrong, that is showing something which was a truth already 90 years ago. It is as if Einstein's ghost is still haunting physics, by asking questions which again and again have to be dismissed as being silly, without ever being answered satisfactorily.

The state of quantum mechanics today as witnessed by all prominent physicists is that

**quantum mechanics is weird****,**with weirdness increasing with prominence. As an example let us just listen to what 2022 Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger, named the Quantum Pope, has to say in the concluding words of his book*Dance of the Photons*with title*What Does It All Mean?*:*We have learned that the idea that the world exists in all its properties independent of us, independent of the kinds of observations we perform,***is in trouble.***It now becomes clear why Einstein had to criticize quantum mechanics, why he called entanglement “spooky.” His picture of the real, factual reality that exists in its essential properties independent of us, this picture of a separation of reality and information,***does not seem to be tenable**in quantum physics.*We also learned that a specific philosophical view has been***definitely ruled out by the experiment.**This is the concept of local realism. Local realism is the point of view that whatever we observe is defined in some way by a real physical property of the observed systems, a property that exists before and independently of our observation.*We also learned that the quantum world is governed by a***qualitatively new kind of randomness**. The individual measurement result is purely random, without any possibility of detailed causal explanation. It is not just that we do not know what the cause is. This is probably the most fascinating consequence in quantum physics. Just imagine: centuries of scientific research, centuries of the search for causes, and**attempts to explain why things happen just the way they happen****lead us to a final wall.**

What Zeilinger says is that the idea of factual reality

*is in trouble*and*does not seem tenable*and attempts to explain why things happen the way they happen*has led to a final wall*, all based on a very tricky photon experiment saying very little about the real world. For this he is awarded the Nobel Prize. The hype is huge: Quantum Manifesto and The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved ItTo be more precise, the Prize is awarded to experimental work showing that model predictions by solving a multi-dimensional linear Schrödinger equation, although uncomputable, exactly agree with certain very specific very tricky experiments with photons without physical reality, from which it is concluded that any search for a model describing physical reality in the spirit of Einstein is fruitless. In other words, modern physics is settled and the Nobel Prize in Physics has no more role to play.

If you do not think that science is ever settled, you may be interested in a realist approach to the atomic world: Real Quantum Mechanics.

Indeed, the linear multi-dimensional Schrödinger equations are not tenable... they are so multi-dimensional that we cannot really solve them, but that problem pales in comparison to the problem that we do not have the resolution (temporal nor visual) to track the evolution of a quantum state, thus even if we could compute the Schrödinger equation for an N-dimensional problem, we'd have no way of knowing if that computation truly reflected reality.

SvaraRaderaWe went to statistical probability solutions simple because we don't have the necessary temporal resolution (we cannot collect information fast enough to track the evolution of a quantum state) nor visual resolution (we cannot zoom in enough to 'see' the electron).

Even now, we can only 'see' a bound electron as a 'smear', a topology of the quantum states that bound electron occupies... we cannot track the movement of the bound electron at a fast enough rate nor with enough resolution such that we know exactly the coordinate position of the electron at any given time. Bound electrons are tiny, and they're fast.

If we were able to do so, though, we'd see that the bound electron hews to the Right-Hand Rule due to Coulombic forces... essentially, the bound electron is acted upon by the positively-charged proton(s) in the nucleus, which attempts to push the bound electron at a right angle to its current direction of motion... this translates into the bound electron 'spiralling' around the nucleus... a spiral, constrained within a sphere. The force acting upon the bound electron is proportional to the orbital radius of the bound electron... the closer the bound electron is to the nucleus, the more the Coulombic forces act upon it, the tighter the spiral.

Einstein fell into the common misconception that quantum entanglement meant that two quantumly-entangled 'particles' (fundamental particles, which I like to call 'entities' to avoid confusion between invariant-mass particles (fermions) and massless waves (photons)) could be used to 'flip' the spin of a distant (but quantumly-entangled) particle if its local counterpart's spin were flipped. That's the basis of his "spooky action at a distance" phrase.

But that's not how it works... quantum 'entanglement' is a misnomer, it'd be better described as quantum correlation. If the spin of the local particle is flipped, the distant but quantumly-entangled particle's spin won't also flip... the entanglement will instead be destroyed... the correlation between the spins of the two particles will be destroyed.

Thus, there is no "spooky action at a distance"... it's merely two particles which happen to have their quantum properties correlated. Mess with one particle, and it won't change the quantum properties of the other particle, it'll destroy the quantum entanglement.

Even measurement destroys the entanglement, because in order to measure, we must interact with the particle, and that interaction introduces uncertainties (hence Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) which destroys the quantum correlation, the quantum entanglement.

The universe isn't inherently uncertain, we introduce those uncertainties in measuring the system (because we fail to account for the perturbation of the system caused by our measuring it), and we have uncertainty about certain processes due to the lack of resolution (described above), but the universe obeys the fundamental physical laws and thus must be deterministic.

Merely because we cannot measure fast enough or with enough resolution to track the evolution of a system, merely because our mathematics is inadequate to comprehensively model a system, does not mean that system is chaotic or indeterministic. The failing is on our end.

Wikipedia is FUBAR on this topic.

SvaraRaderaThey state:

"Now suppose Alice is an observer for system A, and Bob is an observer for system B. If in the entangled state given above Alice makes a measurement in the {|0>,|1>} eigenbasis of A, there are two possible outcomes, occurring with equal probability:

Alice measures 0, and the state of the system collapses to |0>A|1>B.

.

Alice measures 1, and the state of the system collapses to |1>A|0>B.

If the former occurs, then any subsequent measurement performed by Bob, in the same basis, will always return 1. If the latter occurs, (Alice measures 1) then Bob's measurement will return 0 with certainty.

Thus, system B has been altered by Alice performing a local measurement on system A."No. System B was always in the state that Bob measured from the time the two systems were entangled, Alice didn't change System B. She measured System A, and System B had the opposite quantum property because of the quantum correlation of the two systems, which existed from the time the two systems were quantumly entangled.

Barring any interaction of the systems with the environment, neither system will decohere (ie: change their quantum properties), thus the correlation will hold, no matter how much time passes, no matter how much distance there is between the two systems.

This nonsense that they're claiming, that measuring System A somehow instantly changes System B to the opposite of System A, is just that... nonsense. These 'geniuses' seem not to grasp that the systems are

correlated, intentionally so. They're not changing the distant system, they're merely confirming the correlation of the two systems that existed from the time they caused that correlation to exist.This is exactly what I'm talking about:

SvaraRaderahttps://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/fig3_fy_en_22_entangledParticles.pdf

So essentially what they're claiming, analogizing it back to the gloves example I used above, is:

"Let's say you have two pairs of gloves, each pair consisting of a left-hand and a right-hand glove. The first pair (Pair A) is on the left of your screen, and Pair B is on the right of your screen.

Now, if we move each glove of each pair apart from each other such that the left-hand glove goes to the left, and the right-hand glove goes to the right, eventually the right-hand glove of Pair A will meet up with the left-hand glove of Pair B. And they're 'entangled', they are 'correlated' exactly as the original pairs of gloves were! Magic!

But wait! There's more! The left-hand glove of Pair A and the right-hand glove of Pair B

are also 'entangled', also 'correlated' in exactly the same wayeven though those gloves never experienced each other before! More magic!"Of course, if you have two identical pairs of gloves, you can swap the same-handed glove to the other pair and you'll still have... a pair of gloves! So much magic!

How much are taxpayers wasting on this nonsense?

So the Nobel Prize in Physics was essentially awarded this time around for confirming that entanglement swapping can occur... something which has been known about since ~1993.

SvaraRaderaThe entanglement swapping in the Nobel-winning experiment described above, however, isn't occuring, between the entangled Pair A photons and the entangled Pair B photons (which would be 'spooky action at a distance', which the Copenhagen Interpretation claims occurs)... that entanglement swapping is occuring in the entangler between the photon from Pair A sent to the entangler and the photon from Pair B sent to the entangler.

And that's a local interaction. There are no 'hidden variables', as John von Neumann and John Bell presented proofs of... it's merely our misinterpretation of the results.

Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

"A

lackof a kind of realism (understood here as asserting independent existence and evolution of physical quantities, such as position or momentum, without the process of measurement) is crucial in the Copenhagen interpretation."IOW, the Copenhagen Interpretation is predicated upon indeterminacy, as Born stated in "Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge".

And of course, at the Fifth Solvay Conference (Belgium, October 1927), Born and Heisenberg essentially declared that as regards quantum mechanics, "the science was settled"... "we consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose fundamental physical and mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification".

I think I figured out how the Nobel-prize winning physicists 'cheated'... they cherry-picked their data.

SvaraRaderaTheir entangler is essentially a beam-splitter in reverse (fire two photons in, if your photodetectors on each output both trigger, your input photons are entangled... opposite spins, opposite polarization)... did you know that you get 'entanglement' out of that sort of setup only ~25% of the time?

Remember that all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or anti-parallel to their direction of motion. A macroscopic EM wave is the tensor product of many singular photons which may not all be polarized identically, and thus the macroscopic EM wave can be linearly or elliptically polarized.

They chose only that ~25% of photons 2 and 3 which were already correlated, and disregarded the rest (because, after all, those photons didn't trigger both photodetectors, so they weren't 'entangled', right?)

Photon 2 having parallel polarization, Photon 3 having anti-parallel polarization, which means Photon 1 has anti-parallel polarization and Photon 4 has parallel polarization... 'spooky action at a distance'! A photon which hasn't even been in the vicinity of the other photon can be 'entangled' to that photon!

Photon 2 having anti-parallel polarization, Photon 3 having parallel polarization, which means Photon 1 has parallel polarization and Photon 4 has anti-parallel polarization... 'spooky action at a distance'! A photon which hasn't even been in the vicinity of the other photon can be 'entangled' to that photon!

Aw, geez. Other than 'cheating' by discarding photon pairs which didn't trigger both detectors on the output of the 'beam-splitter in reverse' (ie: discarding data when the photons weren't entangled), they lied a bit... they claim that Photon 1 and Photon 4 never had an relation with each other, but

SvaraRaderathose photons are two of the four photons split from the initial UV beam.The first two photons (Photon 1 and Photon 2) are created when the UV beam goes through a BBO crystal and the light down-converts into two photons.

Then Photon 1 is reflected back through the BBO crystal to undergo down-conversion a second time to generate Photon 3 and Photon 4.

Then Photon 3 and Photon 2 are sent to the 'beam-splitter in reverse', where they trigger the two detectors at the two 'beam-splitter in reverse' outputs if the photons are entangled.

Of course, given that

the photons are all down-converted from the same UV beam, if no decoherence takes place, of course the photons are going to be 'entangled'... that's what they set the experiment up to do.You'll note that's a bit different than the simplified diagram they show, wherein they imply that they generated two pairs of entangled photons independently (1, 2 and 3, 4 being separately entangled), then entangled one of the photons from one pair (2) with one of the photons from the other pair (3), which changed the remaining photons (1, 4) such that they're entangled, too, despite neither of the remaining photons (1, 4) ever being in the vicinity of each other.

This stinks to high heaven.

No, I messed up. Photon 1 isn't reflected back into the BBO crystal. They're not using singular photons, they're using macroscopic EM waves. Here's the correction:

SvaraRaderaRemember that all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or anti-parallel to their direction of motion. If a singular photon is reflected back the direction it came, that photon's polarization is reversed.

So in the experiment which won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, they've taken a UV pulse and purportedly split one of its photons into two photons (1,2) which have opposite polarization.

https://i.imgur.com/FjkJEJX.png

Note especially the text blurb: "

When a coincidence between photons 2 and 3 is registered"... a coincidence isn't registered every single time (which should have scotched their results from the get-go). This also means they're throwing data away when a coincidence isn't registered... they're cherry-picking their results to fit their narrative.The UV pulse from the light source goes through a BBO (beta-barium borate, BaB2O4) crystal, causing parametric down-conversion of some of the photons.

https://i.imgur.com/OxJFTP8.png

The genesis photon from the UV light pulse is split into two photons (1 (idler photon), 2 (signal photon)) of opposite polarization having twice the wavelength of the genesis photon.

The UV pulse from the light source, after going through the BBO crystal, if it is not down-converted, is reflected off a mirror on the back side of the BBO crystal, sending the light back through the BBO crystal to generate a second pair of down-converted photons (3 (signal photon), 4 (idler photon)).

We can see right away that they are not using singular photons, they are using a macroscopic EM wave as their original source. If they were using singular photons, there would be nothing to reflect off that backside mirror (there would only be photons 1 and 2 parametrically down-converted from the genesis photon). This presents some problems as regards their results. They cannot guarantee that the photons they've labeled as 3,4 have the same Bell state polarization characteristics as photons 1,2... which is why a coincidence isn't registered every single time.

So they've cherry-picked results (only recording a 'hit' (a coincidence) when photons 2,3 are 'entangled', which makes photons 1,4 'entangled' by default... given that photons 2,3 are oppositely polarized, so too would be photons 1,4).

If:

Photon 1: L

Photon 2: R

And (after reflection of the genesis photon):

Photon 3: L

Photon 4: R

Then:

Photon 2: R

Photon 3: L

Therefore:

Photon 1: L

Photon 4: R

The above would give them a coincidence 'hit' they could register. But again, a coincidence isn't always registered.

And that is all it is, a

coincidence... a correlation, not causation. They aren't changing the polarization of Photons 1 and 4, they're merely recording the correlation of Bell state polarization characteristics of the photons which existed from the genesis photons (and which don't always correlate). Hardly Nobel-level stuff.All they've done is shown that the two genesis photons (the first one that generated Photons 1 and 2, and the second (reflected) one that generated Photons 3 and 4) were originally identically polarized, given that the second genesis photon underwent reflection and thus had its polarization flipped (which is why, in their diagram, Photon 1 (signal photon) from the first genesis photon went downward, and Photon 3 (signal photon) from the second genesis photon went upward)... the reference frame is flipped for the second genesis photon.

I guarantee that if they put a polarization filter on the output of their UV source, they'd get coincidence 'hits' each and every time with their current setup; and if they injected identically-polarized photons from each end of the BBO crystal (replace the mirror on the back side of the BBO crystal with another UV source and a polarization filter with the same polarization as the first polarization filter), they'd never get a coincidence 'hit'.

Mheh...

SvaraRadera"Photon 1 (signal photon) from the first genesis photon went downward, and Photon 3 (signal photon) from the second genesis photon went upward)... the reference frame is flipped for the second genesis photon."

-should read-

"Photon 1 (idler photon) from the first genesis photon went downward, and Photon 3 (signal photon) from the second genesis photon went upward)... the reference frame is flipped for the second genesis photon."