Does not entanglement and the resulting effects like ghost imaging point to the an ontic state being correct. How could those effects exist epistemically?

Existential nonsense. Of course it's "real". I don't understand the need to box and complicate other than as a method of organization.
A blank sheet of paper is a perfect quantum example - all possibilities (for that piece of paper) exist...
Ergo - quantum state.
However, those possibilities lead to other possibilities in other interacting quantum entities (you for example).
Simplify.

Does not entanglement and the resulting effects like ghost imaging point to the an ontic state being correct. How could those effects exist epistemically?

They could exist because you use a wrong interpretation of "epistemic" (knowledge).
Quit trying to use words you aren't fully adept in using.
Otherwise, you're just feeding your own ego.
The trick is to simplify, not complicate.

Existential nonsense. Of course it's "real". I don't understand the need to box and complicate other than as a method of organization

Yes here we go...

"George Knee obtained an M.Sc. in theoretical physics from Imperial College London in 2010, a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in 2014"

-D.Phil. Which explains the nonsense words ontic, epistemic, and omniscient. And also existential.

Why would someone screw up a perfectly good science education? A shocking number of them even believe in god you know.

There always has to be something more than what is.

you use a wrong interpretation of "epistemic"

There IS no correct interpretation of epistemic. Its bilge.

All experiment in quantum physics unfortunately may bear the same fundamental fault.
Scientist trying to establish position or status experimental subjects in specific given time.
This may not be right approach of Time itself is not constant and linear at this minute level. If Time for example is granular- ( consisting of NOW< PAST

"If these states are ontic, it means that a particle really does occupy two states at once, not merely that it appears that way due to our limited ability to prepare particles, as in the epistemic view."

A particle simply cannot occupy two states at the same time. This violates the basic law of non contradiction. This is the problem with "orthodox" Quantum Mechanics. It is simply impossible. It is absurd.

If such a thing were possible we have lost the basis of all science - logic/rationality. And science itself becomes impossible.

Bohmian mechanics does not have this fundamental problem and therefore wins as a theory.

The title gave me an impression that the work might be another piece of garbage...after going thru the article, I am convinced that indeed it is. Sad to see a working physical theory has to endure so much insult.

My personal opinion based on all that I have seen and understood about Bell's Theorem, the Aspect experiment, and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, is that quantum states are real; that these are matters of ontology, not of epistemology, at least as we generally construe it.

On the other hand, I have to say that I'm not sure that ontic and epistemic understanding really are different when it comes to quantum reality. This also might be merely a matter of one's chosen viewpoint.

A particle simply cannot occupy two states at the same time. This violates the basic law of non contradiction. This is the problem with "orthodox" Quantum Mechanics. It is simply impossible. It is absurd.

In classical terms you are correct. There is, however, no guarantee that quantum reality is like classical reality, or that it obeys classical logic.

What is proposed is a third state: uncertainty. It is this or it is that is classical logic; quantum logic adds a third, classically unobservable state, thisthat if you like. This state collapses, if you like Bohr collapse, if observed; by classical logic once observed it must be either this or that. But if unobserved, it can be thisthat. This state is not possible in classical logic, or in classical physics. It is a purely quantum phenomenon. The Fluctuation Theorem suggests that this becomes more true the shorter times and smaller systems you observe.
[contd]

A particle simply cannot occupy two states at the same time.

Well, the problem here is our everyday definition of what a 'particle' is. We think of a particle as a 'small solid ball' (or somesuch). But that is just a convenience based on extrapolation from observed, macroscopic object behavior - and not based on any fundamental understading/measurement of what stuff really is.

The contradiction you see here is not based on some impossibility, but probably on a faulty idea of what a particle should be vs. what it actually is.

If such a thing were possible we have lost the basis of all science - logic/rationality.

Not really. It just shifts it from a deterministic to a probabilistic view. Probabilities are still logical/rational. Remember that our intuition (what you erroneously call 'logic' in your post) is a development based on (macroscopic) observations. That this may be at odds with realms we have never experienced directly is not surprising.

[contd]
This makes your statement a category error; you are attempting to apply classical reasoning to quantum phenomena, and quantum states do not obey classical logic.

Accept the Born Rule; accept Feynman's statement that if you are not flabbergasted by quantum reality, you have not understood it. Accept that if classical reality is to be as we see it, quantum reality must also be as we see it. Accept that in the quantum reality uncertainty is a state. Do not impose your classical expectations on quantum reality; they do not work there. If it's small or fast or both, your prejudices are violated, and until you accept that you will not and cannot understand.

Bohm was naive; Wheeler, Feynman, and Cramer are sophisticated. I strongly recommend you review Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and the Cramer Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Entanglement only says that *either* 'real' or 'local.' Here, real has the opposite meaning as in the article, in that there is some 'real' state that we simply don't know (ontologically real, but epistemologically not). Local means information, all information, including information we can't know ('ontic' states that we can't have 'epistemic' knowledge of), travels at c or slower.

From Bell's theorem, if we assume that there's some hidden ontic state, then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c (which means the information can travel backwards in time for some observers). If we assume that no such information transfer happens (because information going backwards in time is problematic), then there can't be a hidden ontic state determining behaviour.

How does this sit with relational quantum mechanics?

Relational QM is usually taken to imply the entire quantum state is real (ontic). If this experiment succeeds, it will support that view.

From Bell's theorem, if we assume that there's some hidden ontic state, then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c.

It's not a *must*; that's just one of the possible solutions to the puzzle. The others are super-determinism and many worlds, both of which can be formulated as local and ontic.

[contd]
This makes your statement a category error; you are attempting to apply classical reasoning to quantum phenomena, and quantum states do not obey classical logic.

However, quantum reasoning CAN be applied to classical phenomona, because (as proven by Murphy's Law)
classical states WILL obey quantum logic...
That said, there is no knowledge we CAN'T know, just knowledge we DON'T know - yet...

Entanglement only says that *either* 'real' or 'local.' Here, real has the opposite meaning as in the article, in that there is some 'real' state that we simply don't know (ontologically real, but epistemologically not). Local means information, all information, including information we can't know ('ontic' states that we can't have 'epistemic' knowledge of), travels at c or slower.

Except for the "can't" part, agreed. (you sound like Noumenon with that one)

From Bell's theorem, if we assume that there's some hidden ontic state,

Not hidden, un-extrapolated.

then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c.

No. C IS the rate of info exchange(plus or minus a tiny bit). You are forgetting the AMOUNT of info in an exchange - is increasing.
Guess what that means...:-)

electrical power factor is real, so quantum states have to be real

[contd]
This makes your statement a category error; you are attempting to apply classical reasoning to quantum phenomena, and quantum states do not obey classical logic.

However, quantum reasoning CAN be applied to classical phenomona, because (as proven by Murphy's Law)
classical states WILL obey quantum logic...

No, they don't. Quantum logic is subject to the Born Rule, which states the most you can know is probability for uncertain quantities. Segue to...

That said, there is no knowledge we CAN'T know, just knowledge we DON'T know - yet...

Hmmmm, no, there are things we CAN'T know. For example, we CAN'T know the position and momentum of a single particle to unlimited precision at the same time.

Heisenberg uncertainty, don'cha know.

Entanglement only says that *either* 'real' or 'local.' Here, real has the opposite meaning as in the article, in that there is some 'real' state that we simply don't know (ontologically real, but epistemologically not). Local means information, all information, including information we can't know ('ontic' states that we can't have 'epistemic' knowledge of), travels at c...

Except for the "can't" part, agreed. (you sound like Noumenon with that one)

Actually this is a restatement of Bell's Theorem. Which, being a theorem, has an incontrovertible proof (unlike a theory).

From Bell's theorem, if we assume that there's some hidden ontic state,

Not hidden, un-extrapolated.

No, actually @shavera is using a very specific technical definition of "hidden." It has a very specific meaning in quantum mechanics.

I know you feel like this stuff is philosophy, @Whyde, but you're missing a lot if you don't find out the specific technical meanings here.
[contd]

[contd]

then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c.

No. C IS the rate of info exchange(plus or minus a tiny bit). You are forgetting the AMOUNT of info in an exchange - is increasing. Guess what that means...:-)

I'd be really, really careful arguing with @shavera about quantum mechanics. He's very good.

I'll do a bit of arguing in just a minute, but you want to really know what you're talking about before you engage him.

His point is (my argument in a moment) pretty solid. Bell's Theorem results in a couple of contradictory interpretations of quantum mechanics, and no one has yet figured out an experiment that will differentiate between them. More in a couple minutes when I get another brewski.

Entanglement only says that *either* 'real' or 'local.' Here, real has the opposite meaning as in the article, in that there is some 'real' state that we simply don't know (ontologically real, but epistemologically not). Local means information, all information, including information we can't know ('ontic' states that we can't have 'epistemic' knowledge of), travels at c or slower.

Hmmm, not sure you haven't reversed the logic here, @shavera. You might be right, but it requires analysis.

Bell's Theorem results in the conclusion that either local variables are real even though they're uncertain, or that variables aren't local and can be shared faster than the speed of light. It's not even clear that this is not a dichotomy, viz., you can make an experiment that shows that uncertain variables have real values, or that variables are shared across spacelike intervals, but not an experiment that shows both.
[contd]

[contd]
The actual standard statement of the conclusions drawn from Bell's Theorem is that there are no local hidden variables. What this means is that there isn't some variable on a particle that gets carried along with it to a remote location and then results in a predetermined outcome of a measurement. So, for example, you can either conclude that when you measure the positions of two entangled articles exactly as they emerge from the generation part of your experiment, their momenta were exact at that time but you couldn't measure them, and then later when you measured the momenta they agreed but they varied in flight, or you can conclude that their momenta were uncertain but were correlated faster than light when you measured one of them. But you can't conclude BOTH.

At least I hope I got that right. @shavera will no doubt correct me if not.

So in the end, Bell's Theorem isn't about what you CAN measure, but what you CAN'T. You get either a view that says that non-locality is correct, or that non-realism is correct. So I'm not sure that's quite the same as saying that locality is correct or that realism is correct; there's some wriggle room in there. They might both be correct, depending on the experiment you choose. Or so I generally interpret it.

Gave @shavera a 5 anyway; whoever gave him a 1 is probably an EUdiot.

Now, my position is that the Born Rule is correct, so I'm not a big fan of faster-than-light entanglement or the standard Bohr interpretation of QM with collapse. The Born Rule says that probabilistic outcomes are all we can ever find out about quantities that are conjugate under uncertainty to quantities we have measured. But I'm open to arguments the other way.

[contd]

then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c.

No. C IS the rate of info exchange(plus or minus a tiny bit). You are forgetting the AMOUNT of info in an exchange - is increasing. Guess what that means...:-)

I'd be really, really careful arguing with @shavera about quantum mechanics. He's very good.

DS,
Truly appreciate your input. You and others have training/background discipline that I don't. You see it in terms of the training, I see it in terms of untrained visualization. Not "philosophy", more like - Quantum for Dummies.
So,
not trying to argue. I just get excited at the ramifications of what/how I interpret...
IE; they don't entangle, they "combine". (It's an art thing...:-)
BTW, Crown is better...:-)

Hopefully, here's a better explanation of what I am trying to say;

...then that state *must* transmit information about itself to the entangled partner at faster than c.

it doesn't have to transmit. It is part of, therefore instantly privy to, all information contained within ONE quantum entity, without speed of light lag. The SOL (interesting that we call our own source of light by that name) is only applicable to info passing separate entities.
IOW - SCALE.
I guess scientifically it is most correct to not accept what you haven't observed (until it is observed).
My way is to intuit based on observations you all have provided.
Not as EXACT, but still useful....:-)

No, not quite, but you're getting closer.

When physicists say a particle is "entangled," they mean that it and another particle have generally one common property that is uncertain (and I mean Heisenberg uncertain), and these properties are dependent upon one another. If you measure it for one particle, you know it for the other. This doesn't mean all the properties are entangled; it's one or more, and generally only one. The quantities are dependent because of a conservation law.

So two particles emerge from a situation where a conservation law forces a property of both of them to be correlated, and this property is Heisenberg uncertain. If we measure this property consistently on one of the two particles, for an ensemble of pairs that emerge from this situation, we get a probabilistic outcome: a probability distribution. This property is said to follow the Born Rule.
[contd]

[contd]
But if we consistently measure this property for *both* particles, despite the fact that we get a random value, *they always come out correlated*. So how can a property that has a random value (which we can tell because we get a probability distribution) come out correlated?

This is weird.

With a classical situation like this, we can show that the values will always come out correlated too, but in that case there is no probability distribution (because it's classical, there's no uncertainty). It's the *combination* of the Born Rule and the correlation that is different between the classical and quantum situations.

Now, what Bell showed in his eponymous Theorem is that this can't be due to a local hidden property that the two particles share that we can't measure, that determines the outcomes of these measurements.

And this makes the situation even weirder.
[contd]

[contd]
This leads inevitably to two possible solutions:
1. There are hidden properties, but they are not properties of the particles, but of the universe, that is, they are not *local* hidden variables but *global* hidden variables, or
2. There is a way that the two particles' entangled property gets "communicated" somehow faster than light between them.

Classical systems simply don't behave this way. It's weird, and it's something only quantum systems can do.

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics assert the first (Bohm and the TIQM) and some assert the second (Copenhagen with collapse). Lots of experiments have been done to determine which is right and which is wrong, but the problem there is, they *all* succeed! And that's the weirdest of all.

As Bohr famously said, "If you are not shocked by quantum mechanics, you haven't understood it."

There is a way that the two particles' entangled property gets "communicated" somehow faster than light between them

It gets even weirder because such communication does not constitute information interchange

Definition of information interchange is: you set a priori values at the source, transmit and then measure a-posteriori values at the receiver. Correlation between the a priori state and the a posteriori state is information transmission.

Now here's the weird part: you can't *set* a priori values at the reciever that are entangled. You can make two entities entangled, but you can't *set* which will have which value when you measure it a posteriori (because such 'setting' would constitute an observation and break entanglement and you'd be back to a classical state)

So this quirk cannot be used for faster than light information transmission (it can be used for encryption, though, because encryption isn't information)

Accepting the Born Rule means that one accepts that for quantum particles, for properties that have two classical states, there is a third state: superposition. In this state the property has a probability of being in one classical state or the other; but it is in neither. Bell's Theorem can be interpreted in this way to mean that there is no hidden state that determines it; but if one accepts that, then one is left with the two alternatives: global hidden variables, or non-locality. But because it's probabilistic, as you say, @antialias, you can't set an a priori value for the property; and without that, you can't transfer information with it.

The reason it can be used for encryption is because the entanglement means that two separated particles have correlated values, but only if no one has measured them. This allows secure transmission of a one-time pad cipher key that cannot be viewed by any third party.
[contd]

[contd]
One must note, however, that the entangled particles must be distributed to the two parties who will communicate, and that this can only happen at the speed of light at maximum. The particles themselves contain the elements of the one-time pad; without each party receiving one of the two entangled particles for each bit of the key, they do not share a key. The key is information, and is subject to the limitations of locality. What entanglement provides in this case is security.

Lots of entanglement communication scheme advocates fail to understand this. Thus we get various proposals for ansibles and such, and improper use of terms like "teleportation."

Exactly. I find this one of the most beautiful things in physics as it's an indication that the speed of light truly is the limit of information interchange (barring some manipulation of spacetime itself - like wormholes - but even there the speed of light limit for information is never, locally, broken).

It's also a mathematically beautiful thing because it shows that if you encrypt a signal you aren't adding information.
On top of that it supports the idea that the speed of light is really the universal ruler (something that underpins relativity) - thereby making a neat connection between quantum mechanics and relativity.

I find this more excites my enthusiasm for the perception of deep principles in physics than my aesthetic sense; but in the end, I suppose what I find most beautiful is in fact this perception, so I suppose it boils down to the same thing.

The deep perception I see here is that there is a pattern in quantum mechanics and relativity in which classical alternatives turn out to be not as alternative as they at first seem. When physicists were dealing with the FitzGerald solutions, to explain the Michelson-Morley experiement, these solutions were described by quoting a line from a Lewis Carrol poem:

"But I was thinking of a plan:
To dye one's whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
That they could not be seen."

I have found this pattern over and over again as I dug deeper into both relativity and quantum mechanics. Whenever I see it I know I've seen a deep principle of how the universe works.

The deep perception I see here is that there is a pattern in quantum mechanics and relativity in which classical alternatives turn out to be not as alternative as they at first seem.

"But I was thinking of a plan:
...
That they could not be seen."

I have found this pattern over and over again as I dug deeper into both relativity and quantum mechanics. Whenever I see it I know I've seen a deep principle of how the universe works.

The pattern is simple - for everything we observe up or down in scale, there is an opposite "scale" to balance it out.
"Find the fulcrum" is the game...
You never really will find it, because every change on one side causes a change on the other.
The only way to "win" at it, is to not play...
And where's the fun in that..:-)?

"Find the fulcrum" is the game...
You never really will find it, because every change on one side causes a change on the other.
The only way to "win" at it, is to not play...
And where's the fun in that..:-)?

Edit - "causes a change (in it's opposite complement) on the other" - and the fulcrum shifts...