Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Einstein's brilliant mistake: Entangled states - Chad Orzel" video.

  1. Awh, it's so cute when a high school dropout dresses up as a high school dropout. ;-)
    2
  2.  @eatYoself  Oops, I forgot to give you attention. My bad. ;-)
    1
  3. That's not what the EPR paper argues. You should read it in detail when you have the time. The main problem with the paper is not how it uses quantum mechanics but how it defines "completeness". Here is the original language: "Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete, the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory. We shall call this the condition of completeness." It requires that elements of physical reality are mapped to elements of the theory. Copenhagen does that just fine. The actual "problem" with Copenhagen is that it has a theoretical element that DOES NOT exist in physical reality: the wave function. A wave function is an ensemble average, i.e. it's a mathematical abstract. Nature only has exactly one copy of each physical quantum system, while in the theory we postulate an infinite ensemble of statistically independent but otherwise identical copies. That is exactly the same procedure that we use to define probabilities and one can, indeed, derive the structure of quantum mechanics from Kolmogorov's axioms without much difficulty. So it's not that the theory isn't "complete". It's actually more than complete by this definition. It requires something on paper that nature doesn't provide itself in experiments and observations. So while the paper is technically correct (it shuts up and calculates correctly), it completely missed to identify the source of the ontological problems with non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
    1
  4. Einstein was wrong about the properties of quanta already. In his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect he writes that quanta have to have a position property. That does not follow from either the experimental facts not from his theoretical arguments. It does not follow from Planck's work. It does not follow from de Broglie or even the full Copenhagen interpretation. Quanta having position has, indeed, never been observed.
    1