22/10/2015-'Loophole-free' CHSH Tests Still Don't Prove Anything
'Loophole-free' CHSH Tests Still Don't Prove Anything-tyw
“无漏洞”CHSH测试仍啥也无法证明
A mini-rant today :D
An article and research paper was published today, about a supposed “Loophole-Free” CHSH Bell test intending to show entanglement of particles –
今日份碎碎念
今天发表了一篇文章和研究论文，是关于一个所谓的“无漏洞”CHSH Bell测试，旨在证明粒子的纠缠——
http://hansonlab.tudelft.nl/loophole-free-Bell-test/
Actual Paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15759.html
First off, you can't cheat on a test that is so flawed to begin with. Miles Mathis has made us aware of how blatantly arbitrary the test is setup to always show an absolute Inequality value over 2.
首先，你不能在一开始就有缺陷的考试中作弊。迈尔斯·马西斯(Miles Mathis)已经让我们意识到这个测试是多么的武断，它总是显示一个不等式的绝对值大于2。
http://milesmathis.com/chsh.pdf
So the testing methodology is flawed to begin with, so there's really no point in testing anyway.
所以测试方法一开始就有缺陷，所以测试真的没有意义。
Moreover, as Mathis mentions, detector error is never zero, and should logically increaseas the distances between emitted electrons increases.
此外，正如马西斯所提到的，探测器的误差永远不会为零，而且在逻辑上应该随着发射电子之间距离的增加而增加。
The existing “loophole-free” study got a value of 2.42 ± 0.20. Closer to the predicted 2√2 = 2.828 value, but still a ways off, and with a huge margin of error.
现有的“无漏洞”研究得到的值为2.42±0.20。更接近预测的2√2 = 2.828值，但仍有一段距离，有巨大的误差幅度。
As Mathis states:
Stronger violations in the area of 2.25 have been found since then, but the experiments have to be made more complicated to get higher numbers. The simpler the experiment, the closer to 2 it gets.
他陈述：
从那时起，在2.25范围内发现了更强的违规行为，但为了得到更高的数字，实验必须更加复杂。实验越简单，结果越接近2。
It's more likely that the new test, with it's increased distances and complexity, induces more detector error, and thus fudges the result even higher than the 2.25 of previous experiments.
更有可能的是随着距离的增加和复杂性的增加，新的测试会导致更多的检测误差，从而伪造比之前2.25实验更高的结果。
Comment on Quantum Biology
With books about Quantum Biology now hitting the mainstream like 'Life on the Edge'
量子生物学评论
随着《边缘生命》等关于量子生物学的书籍成为主流，(http://www.amazon.com/Life-Edge-Coming-Quantum-Biology/dp/0307986810)we are well into the age of biologists trying to use Quantum Physics to explain biological behaviour.我们已经进入了生物学家试图用量子物理学来解释生物行为的时代。
Phenomena like Enzyme mechanics are explained by “Proton Tunneling”. Magnetic navigation is explained by magically entangled FAD+ states with cryptochromes.
像酶力学这样的现象可以用“质子隧穿”来解释。磁导航是通过与隐色素神奇地纠缠的FAD+状态来解释的。
(http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/cryptochrome/)
I should mention that in such biological systems, the distances involved are so small, and the proteins packed in ordered configurations, soaked in charge channelling structured water, that information passing between components in the organism is actually highly likely. Why do we need entanglement to explain information passing in an environment designed for exactly that?
我应该提到的是，在这样的生物系统中，所涉及的距离是如此之小，蛋白质被排列成有序的结构，浸泡在有结构的水里，信息在生物体各组成部分之间传递的可能性是非常大的。为什么我们需要纠缠来解释信息在设计的环境中传递呢?
Mathis also comments on all the problems with quantum tunnelling:
马西斯还评论了量子隧穿的所有问题:
http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/dope.pdf
Just because you have an exponentially more efficient way for enzymes to work in particular configurations, you do not jump to weird magical Quantum mechanics which do not have any basis in real mechanics.
仅仅因为你有一种指数效率更高的方式让酶在特定的结构中工作，你就不会跳到奇怪的神奇的量子力学，它在真正的力学中没有任何基础。
I fully accept the observed behaviour that enzymes are suddenly made efficient under certain configurations. I am more a fan of Mathis' charge channelling models, which are rooted in real mechanics, and explain why enzymes rely so heavily on particular chemical groups or metals (these would act as efficient charge channels).
我完全接受所观察到的酶在特定结构下突然变得有效的行为。我更喜欢马西斯的电荷通道模型，它植根于真实的力学，并解释了为什么酶如此严重地依赖于特定的化学基团或金属(这些可以作为有效的电荷通道)。
I do not have the exact mechanics yet to propose definitively the mechanism for this highly efficient enzymatic configuration, but real mechanical models like Mathis are far preferred as a starting point, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and asking for a miracle to happen when enzymes get closer than 14 Angstroms.
我没有确切的机制还没有提出明确的机制高效酶配置,但实际力学模型像马西斯首选作为起始点,而不是把我们的手举在空中,要求一个奇迹发生在酶比14埃靠近。
I also fully accept that FAD changes state based upon light incidence, and that these different states are significant to cellular signalling. But we do not need to invoke Quantum Mechanics with its pseudo spins to fudge away any mechanical attempt at a proper explanation.
我也完全接受FAD会根据光的入射改变状态，这些不同的状态对细胞信号传递非常重要。但我们不需要借助量子力学的伪自旋来回避任何机械上的合理解释。
Quantum Mechanical Explanations
The key problem with Quantum Biology is that there are attempts to use Quantum Physics as a basis to explain biological phenomena.
量子力学的解释
量子生物学的关键问题在于，有人试图用量子物理学作为解释生物现象的基础。
Biology certainly converges upon Physics at some level. Mitochondria pump electrons (which are nothing more than spun-up photons). Electromagnetic Signals disrupt cell structure. The Cell Membrane itself is a highly charged boundary. etc…
生物学当然在某种程度上与物理学汇合。线粒体泵浦电子(电子只不过是自旋的光子)。电磁信号破坏细胞结构。细胞膜本身是一个高度带电的边界。等等……
But to neglect real mechanics in such explanations doesn't lead to real conclusions, and trying to extrapolate QED to “magical communicate” between systems through entangled particles, leads one to horribly false conclusions.
但是在这样的解释中忽视真实的力学并不会导致真正的结论，而试图通过纠缠粒子将QED推断为系统之间的“魔法交流”，则会导致可怕的错误结论。
Moreover, this focus prevents us from looking at the very real ways that charge networks like the Collagen meridians (collagen is conductive), and the Actin and Integrin matrix (which emits charge under mechanical stress), act to push charge from one region to another to create this this we call life.
此外，这种关注使我们无法看到电荷网络的真实方式，比如胶原蛋白经络(胶原蛋白是导电的)，肌动蛋白和整合蛋白基质(在机械压力下释放电荷)，将电荷从一个区域推到另一个区域，从而创造出我们所说的生命。
Suddenly, “woo woo” stuff like “energetic blockages” or “encoding” in an Acupuncture Meridian (which is just collagen) make physical sense, and can be physically investigated, and can be physically validated to determine efficacy of real-world clinical outcomes.
突然之间，像“能量阻塞”或“编码”针灸经络(只是胶原蛋白)这样的东西在物理上有了意义，可以进行物理研究，可以进行物理验证，以确定现实世界临床结果的有效性。
You don't need QED to have a “coherent information network”. Let's stick to real mechanics instead.
你不需要QED来拥有一个“一致的信息网络”。让我们专注于真正的机制。