Is there a PhD in the house?

JP:

When I said I did not see any corrections to my statement, I meant to my explanation of spooky entanglement: "Entanglement is intrinsic to the quantum field and when one photon is tested for at it highest probability for occurrence at that point both that photon and its mirror photon come into existence as photons instantly and simultaneously." It is awkward explaining and defending mainstream concepts that I do not agree with.

I did not say that the experimental results would be the same for classical physics and the quantum field. What I said was they would be the same after the first interaction and the collapse of the quantum field.

"This is referred to as the collapse of the wave function - of probability amplitudes - that defines the system, so the system ends up in one definite state and no other...the systems wave function collapses into a classical state." from the Institute of Science in Society

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HNTCTWF.phpWhen I that say Quantum Theory does not agree with experimental results, it does not mean that it does not agree with all results ( in fact there are many )but, instead it means that there some results that it does not.

I have posted some on this site such as some one my own, "Why does the double slit pattern disappear in this experiment", and some historical ones such as "Has the Chiao Anomaly ever been explained".

There have been some recent wrinkles in the Bell experiments.

"There is another objection to the experimental test that, at least so far, nobody has managed to get totally around. We measure a spin in combination of, say zero degrees and 45 degrees for a collection of electrons and then measure another spin combination, say 45 degrees and 90 degrees, for another collection of electrons...The difference is that a collection of say a billion electrons from the source in the correlation experiment always behaves identically within small and statistical fluctuations with every other collection of a billion electrons from the source. Since that fact has been verified many many times for all experiments of all types, we assume that it is true when we are doing these correlation experiments". from

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.htmlI have some ideas as to why this is but I don't want to be responsible for having Pikaia's thread sent to the new theory dungeon.

You are always saying my information about quantum theory is incorrect without references and forcing me to supply them. For example in my very first thread on this site "Does Experiment Contradict Quantum Theory", in your reply (post 310841) you claimed I was wrong in my statement about Bohms Realism in that you said "you can't force the particle to travel through one slit while the pilot waves go through both slits." This forced me to put up the wikippedia discribtion:"In Broglie-Bohm theory, the wave function travels through both slits, but each particle has a well defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits."

Please read my post thoroughly and think about your replies. I am having to waste a lot of time unnecessarily.

Gezzer:

You may be correct and I am probably using my terminology to loosely. Instead of referring to the difference between Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory I should have referred to the difference between Quantum Mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. In my limited circle that is what Q.T. usually means but that is probably not uninversal. I should probably be more specific in my posting topics as well. For example "Disproof of Quantum Theory" should probably have been "Disproof of the principle of target oriented collapse of the Quantum Field".

Thanks for reining me in.