Quantum Crackpot RANDI Counter Challenge: “Explain Quantum Weirdness”.

I started this Counter Challenge on the Science 2.0 website, but the Webmaster, Hank Campbell did not like my defense of Joy Christian’s work and deleted those blogs and denied me access. He kept my Counter Challenge and even edited comments he did not like, and without access I cannot intervene. Please use this link.

The reason for the counter challenge is to point out that the Quantum Crackpot Challenge rests upon the premise that quantum mechanics is complete and answers all the questions.  If that is the case, then why do many use the phrase “quantum weirdness” to “explain” some results?  In my solution to the EPR problem, there is no quantum weirdness and I will be explaining how the data is obtained without entanglement.

For discussion we’ll take an EPR pair as two spins in a singlet state. The Counter Challenge is:

• How does an EPR pair maintain conservation of spin angular momentum over space-like separations?

or

• Using physical logic, explain how EPR and teleportation experiments work.

or

• What are “quantum channels”?

Since to date, no one has been able to explain the above within quantum theory, the conclusion must be that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

The phrase “quantum weirdness” is recognized as meaningless and has no place in science.

In my next entry I will start to answer their Challenge and explain the above with no quantum weirdness.

Related Posts:

• Quantum Crackpot RANDI Challenge Taken: Part 2
• Quantum Crackpot-a Challenge Taken
• 003 Positivism, empricism
• What I like about quantum mechanics.
• Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge Taken: Part 1