Originally posted by twhitehead
What does "EPR" stand for?
And is non-locality proven? By what, may I ask?

[b]I conclude we cannot detect the photon’s gravitational pull mainly because in fact Einstein’s “elements of reality” do not exist -therefore the assertion of independent "elements of reality" that each of them has its own separate on-board bit of information is false.
Wh ...[text shortened]... order to determine how the gravity is affected
😵[/b]
Now you've lost me entirely.[/b]

Edit: “What does "EPR" stand for?
And is non-locality proven? By what, may I ask?”

EPR is a paper written in 1935 by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen. All of them three argued that, contrary to the QM predictions of quantum physics, particles must have definite local attributes. In 1964 Bell brought up his theorem and his inequality that is used to determine the “locality” versus the “non-locality” issue. In fact, if the EPR assertion of local reality was accurate, Bell’s inequality would not be violated and thus the non-locality would be shown to be accurate -but the inequality is indeed infringed. So what exactly is violated?
Bell brought up his inequality grounded on two following assumptions, known as “locality” and “reality”:
1. No causal influences could be transmitted at a speed greater than that of light (locality assumption), and
2. The quantities we measure in quantum mechanics do not really exist whether or not we attempt to make a measurement (reality assumption).
So when Bell's inequality was broken it was concluded that either one or both of these assumptions (locality assumption or reality assumption) should be false. Of course, as it was shown by Thomas Brody in 1993 in his book “The Philosophy behind Physics” published by Springer-Verlag, Bell actually made also a third assumption in deriving his inequality, in addition to assumptions of “realism” and “locality”. Brody calls this assumption “Joint Measurability Assumption” and he claims that it “…refers to the possibility of measuring two (or more) physical quantities without mutual interference; this last expression is to be understood in the sense that neither measurement affects the value obtained by the other... In the case of spin projections, the JMA is violated”. And this cannot be negated, for we assume that when a photon having passed through a polarising filter is supposed to be put into a new state and therefore its original axis is no longer measurable. So indeed we do accept that two measurements on the same photon cannot figure in the same sample space; in other words, we accept that it ’s meaningless to discuss about the result that such an alternative measurement would offer if it could have been performed!



Edit: “Why do you always write in such a way that it is impossible to understand what you are saying?”

It comes out naturally;



Edit: “Can you state clearly whether or not a photon has gravitational pull and why it cant be detected?”

I can, but it would be exhausting. Therefore you can always enjoy http://www.signaldisplay.com/debroglie.html



Edit: “Now you've lost me entirely.”

Nope, I know you are still There
😵