Nonlocality, EPR, "Spooky" Action at a Distance Explained by Moving Dimensions Theory
jollyro...@yahoo.com
A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS
OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL QUANTUM MECHANICAL
AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.
This explains the EPR effect, double slit experiment, and more.
Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics: The Distribution of Localization
The nonlocal interactions and "spooky" action-at-a-distance
observed in quantum mechanics are simply explained by the nonlocality
of the fourth expanding dimension as accounted for in Moving Dimensions
Theory. Think about what it means for a dimension to expand. A point
in the dimension expands equally in all directions. That point is now
distributed throughout the other stationary dimensions, yet defines the
exact same place in that expanding dimension. In the case of an
expanding fourth dimension in the context of three stationary
dimensions, that point will appear as a three dimensional wavefront
expanding at the rate of c relative to the three stationary dimensions,
in units of the Planck length.
And so it is that photons do not age, as they stay at the exact same
place in the expanding fourth dimension. And so it is that two distant
particles can influence one-another instantaneously, as until they are
measured, aspects of their wave functions can exist in the exact same
place in time, though distributed throughout space.
This explains wave-particle duality and phenomona such as interference
patterns and action-at-a-distance. The component of the matter in the
expanding time dimension exhibits wave properties as it expands through
the three dimensions. The component of the matter in the spatial
dimensions exhibits particle-like behavior.
When a photon is measured (when it interacts with localized lab
equipment) it leaves the expanding fourth dimension and appears in one
single point in the spatial dimensions. This has been referred to as
the collapse of the wave function.
Moving dimensions theory explains many other phenomena and will play a
key role in string theory and LQG.
More on the history of Moving Dimensions Theory:
http://physicsmathforums.com
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=moving+dimensions+theory&btnG=Search
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=moving+dimensions&safe=off&qt_s=Search
Steve Ralph
<jollyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121011551.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Moving Dimensions Theory states: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT
> A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS
> OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL QUANTUM MECHANICAL
> AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.
>
> This explains the EPR effect, double slit experiment, and more.
>
> Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics: The Distribution of Localization
>
> The nonlocal interactions and "spooky" action-at-a-distance
> observed in quantum mechanics are simply explained by the nonlocality
> of the fourth expanding dimension as accounted for in Moving Dimensions
> Theory. Think about what it means for a dimension to expand. A point
> in the dimension expands equally in all directions.
A point has no area or volume, so how can it expand?
SR
jollyro...@yahoo.com
Ever hear of Xeno's paradox?
How can anything move, if each movement must first cover half the
distance to the next point, and so on?
Steve Ralph
<jollyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121014983.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Great question!!
That wasn't a question.
sr
Steve Ralph
"Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42d15bbb$0$2879$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> <jollyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121014983.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Great question!!
>
> That wasn't a question.
Maybe this is clearer.
A point has no area or volume, so it cannot expand.
sr
jollyro...@yahoo.com
quantization of the expanding foruth dimension.
jollyro...@yahoo.com
Bill Hobba
<jollyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121011551.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Moving Dimensions Theory states: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT
> A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS
> OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL QUANTUM MECHANICAL
> AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.
>
> This explains the EPR effect, double slit experiment, and more.
>
> Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics: The Distribution of Localization
Since QM does not imply non locality you are addressing a problem that does
not exist - http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/quest.html
'Is quantum mechanics nonlocal? This depends on what one means by
"nonlocal." Two separated quantum systems A and B can be in an entangled
state that lacks any classical analog. However, it is better to think of
this as a nonclassical rather than as a nonlocal state, since doing
something to system A cannot have any influence on system B as long as the
two are sufficiently far apart. In particular, quantum theory gives no
support to the notion that the world is infested by mysterious long-range
influences that propagate faster thaan the speed of light. Claims to the
contrary are based upon an inconsistent or inadequate formulations of
quantum principles, typically with reference to measurements.'
That is apart from the fact that has been pointed out on many occasions your
ideas dot not even make sense.
Rest snipped
Bill
p6
But isn't it that the spin of A for example has no definite value
until it is measured, at which point, it must produce an instantaneous
effect a B (which can be located anywhere), collapsing its spin wave
function into the opposite or down state.
What you seem to be implying is that A has a definite value already
fixed in space. But according to QM, it has 50-50 change of being
either and before measurement. There is literally no fixed value.
Alain aspect experiment that uses correlated photons produced
the same result.
p6
Uncle Al
>
> Moving Dimensions Theory states: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT
> A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS
> OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL QUANTUM MECHANICAL
> AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Particularly egregious vs. #7.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
spani
you.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:eDiAe.37025$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Funny, I had read somewhere that Bell/Aspect proved nonlocality
is a consequence of QM.
>
> That is apart from the fact that has been pointed out on many occasions
> your
> ideas do[] not even make sense.
No question there. And that joker appears to have a PhD
in physics, no less, from UNC. Maybe UNC's accredidation
should be reviewed.
--
rb
Bill Hobba
"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121042408.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You are assuming it has a value when it is not measured - which is the view
of local reality - we have zero proof such is the case. Indeed how you
would prove objects have values when nor being measured is beyond me. The
state may or may not exist - it may be just a calulational device - so we
can not say if its change is non local or not. Indeed the view of
consistant histories is we do not think of a state as having locality -
simply as not classical.
>
> What you seem to be implying is that A has a definite value already
> fixed in space. But according to QM, it has 50-50 change of being
> either and before measurement. There is literally no fixed value.
I am not claiming any particular view - simply that local reality may or may
not be true. Did you read the kochen-specher theorem to find out what views
are in accord with QM? If you did then you would know it is perfectly ok to
deny value definiteness - indeed you can not maintain both value
definiteness and non contextuality - both usual requirements of local
reality. If you reject value definiteness then you can not say what the
spin of the other photon is because it is not being measured so there is
nothing to be non local. It is simple if you think about it logically.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <sto...@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:f7nAe.5564$rF5...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
One can get that view from popular accounts. However they proved it as a
consequence of QM and the assumption of 'local realism' (sometimes not
explicitly stated but always assumed)
http://www.answers.com/topic/bell-s-theorem
Local realism may or may not be correct - it would seem to be beyond
experimental confirmation. Indeed the Kochen Speker theorem
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
says that two properties we normally associate with local realism, namely
value defiteness and non conceptuality, can not both be true if QM is
correct. Which just goes to show it may be experimentally investigateable
after all. The out of course is what you define as local realism.
>
> >
> > That is apart from the fact that has been pointed out on many occasions
> > your
> > ideas do[] not even make sense.
>
> No question there. And that joker appears to have a PhD
> in physics, no less, from UNC. Maybe UNC's accredidation
> should be reviewed.
Perhaps he/she is not telling the truth? We have a regular poster on
sci.physics.relativity who can not do simple math and claims to be a
professor.
Thanks
Bill
>
> --
> rb
>
>
p6
Prior to your reply I wrote "But isn't it that the spin of A for
example has no definite value until it is measured". Hence I didn't
say it has value before measurement, so don't argue something I
didn't say.
So it doesn't have any definite value before measurement. Now get
an entangled pair, one is sent to me, the other is sent to you in say
a space station in pluto. Before measurment. It has literally no
value, then when the wave function is collapsed, I got an
up spin. Since the combined spin is neutral, your spin must
be down. So how does the two knows which is which.
Anyway. I'll read your Kochen-Specher Theorem to see what it has
to say. Things would be less complicated without this non-locality
spooks. But this means Alain Aspect and all the pop-sci writers
are wrong emphasizing about the entanglement. I think you are
doing a semantic manipulation to make it less mysterious and
more mathematical, mechanical and dry..... Lets see...
p6
Bill Hobba
Will you please try and think a bit more clearly. In order to say B is
affected by the measurement of A you need to assume at has properties that
exist independent of measurement - measuring A is not the same as measuring
B. If it only has properties when measured then there is nothing to effect
non locally.
>
> So it doesn't have any definite value before measurement.
>
You assumed when A was measured B had definite properties even though you
only measured A.
> Now get
> an entangled pair, one is sent to me, the other is sent to you in say
> a space station in pluto. Before measurment. It has literally no
> value, then when the wave function is collapsed, I got an
> up spin. Since the combined spin is neutral, your spin must
> be down. So how does the two knows which is which.
That assumes it has a value independant of measurement Please try and think
clearly
>
> Anyway. I'll read your Kochen-Specher Theorem to see what it has
> to say.
Why didn't you read it before posting?
> Things would be less complicated without this non-locality
> spooks.
Things would be better if people like yourself would read the literature and
post in the form of questions rather than assuming what you do not
understand amounts to a problem rather that what it is - a misunderstanding.
> But this means Alain Aspect and all the pop-sci writers
> are wrong emphasizing about the entanglement.
And if you are correct it means the views of equally esteemed physicists
like Griffith are incorrect. Pop sci writers are always explaining complex
concepts in superficial ways that lead people like yourself to the wrong
conclusions.
> I think you are
> doing a semantic manipulation to make it less mysterious and
> more mathematical, mechanical and dry..... Lets see...
I think you are simply not thinking clearly enough.
Bill
Don Giovanni
This today we cyclical introduce the complex but fascinating biography
of a chameleonic man in which they lodge and riemergono good attempts
and diabolic pulsioni. The art, the culture, the admiration for the
large ones of the past, political intelligence, the integrit?morale and
puranco the Socialism on one side. But from the other the perfidy,
blinding vendetta, the spietatezza, the servant encomio and codardo the
insult. How much, and how much deeply to pu?trasformare a man in the
course of own ET? Bill Hobba in this sense an illuminant example
Ranando King
>
> "p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121081034.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > "p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1121042408.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I'm reading things correctly....
p6 is asking what happens when 2 1/2spin entangled particles are separated
sufficiently that no actions on 1 will change the other, right?
If nothing affects a change on the 2 particles before measurement, then
whatever the spin measurement of particle A turns out to be, particle B
*MUST* be the opposite (Pauli exclusion), right?
The problem is that according to QM, neither A nor B separately have any
definite state until either A or B is measured, but the system AB is known
to have neutral spin, right?
p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state of
particle B is known (EPR paradox). This leads to the conclusion that either
1) the particles communicated at superluminal speed, or 2) the state of both
particles pre-existed measurement, right?
BH is countering this conjecture with the notion that even the properties of
A & B which exhibit the spin states do not exist before measurement, right?
Bill, if I'm not too far off the train of thought in this conversation, then
answer me this: How can it be that the properties of particles A & B do not
exist if it is known that the state of the system AB, as exhibited by their
relative spin properties, is neutral? If both particles are known to be 1/2
spin particles, and the sum of their spin is known to be 0, then how can it
be that their individual spin state properties do not exist?
I can accept that QM cannot say that the properties exist simply for the
fact that QM can't say anything about anything that wasn't measured, but
making a claim that physical properties do not exist until they're measured
is like saying my wife isn't wearing clothes until I look at her, little
more than an enticing thought, not having any bearing on reality.
Question:
Why is it so hard for physicists to simply answer "I don't know" when it
comes to questions they have no data to answer? Let me put it another way.
Is there any way to prove that an unmeasured particle has no properties?
R.
greatbook...@yahoo.com
The results of Bell's inequality support Moving Dimensions Theory:
http://physicsmathforums.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality
Bell's theorem refers to a class of correlation inequalities that hold
under local realism but do not apply under quantum mechanics (QM). The
Theorem is named after John Bell, whose ground-breaking mid-1960's
papers examined both von Neumann's proof of the non-existence of hidden
variables (1932) and the EPR paradox (1935) in greater detail. Bell's
most famous paper is entitled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox
(1964).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality
Bell test experiments
Main article: Bell test experiments.
Bell's inequalities are tested by "coincidence counts" from a Bell test
experiment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. Pairs of
particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with
respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then
detected. The setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by
the experimenter.
Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly suggest that Bell's
inequality is violated. Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments
performed prior to 1986 is given in 4.5 of (Redhead, 1987). Of the
thirteen experiments listed, only two reached results contradictory to
quantum mechanics; moreover, according to the same source, when the
experiments were repeated, "the discrepancies with QM could not be
reproduced".
Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell testThe source S produces pairs of
"photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a
two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or b) can be set by the
experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and
coincidences of four types (++, --, +- and -+) counted by the
coincidence monitor.
Enlarge
Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell test
The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions.
Each photon encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or
b) can be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel
are detected and coincidences of four types (++, --, +- and -+) counted
by the coincidence monitor.
Nevertheless, the issue is not conclusively settled. According to
Shimony's 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia overview article
"Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored
Quantum Mechanics, but not decisively because of the 'detection
loopholes' or the 'communication loophole.' The latter has been nearly
decisively blocked by a recent experiment and there is a good prospect
for blocking the former."
After EPR, the scientific community had been left in the uncomfortable
position that QM appeared accurate but incomplete. In this view, local
hidden variables existed but were not described by QM (and thus QM must
be incomplete). However, Bell showed that seemingly "reasonable"
assumptions within EPR about reality led to a contradiction with the
predictions of quantum mechanics. The assumptions were that a) no
effect can propagate faster than the speed of light (this is the
requirement of locality); and b) that the likelihood of any permutation
of the hypothesized hidden variables occurring was between 0% and 100%.
Bell saw that this was not always the case when considering spin
polarization components with entangled particles at specific angles.
Subsequent experimental tests of Bell's Inequalities are consistent
with the predictions of QM. However, they are inconsistent with at
least one of the assumptions of local reality. Therefore, either a) or
b) is incorrect.
Bell considered a hypothetical setup in which two observers, now
commonly referred to as Alice and Bob, perform independent measurements
on a system S prepared in some fixed state. Moreover, on each trial,
Alice and Bob can choose between various detector settings; after
repeated trials Alice and Bob collect statistics on their measurements
and correlate the results. In one version of this setup, Alice can
choose between two detector settings to measure one of XA or YA, and
Bob can choose between detector settings to measure either XB or YB.
Each measurement has one of two possible outcomes +1, -1.
As an example, consider a composite system consisting of two electrons
prepared in a special state, one of which is sent to Alice and the
other one to Bob. Alice and Bob then each measure the spin of their
electron along one of two perpendicular axes.
There are two key assumptions in Bell's analysis: (1) each measurement
reveals an objective physical property of the system (2) a measurement
taken by one observer has no effect on the measurement taken by the
other.
In the version of the inequality due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and
Holt (called the CHSH form):
(1) \quad \mathbf{C}(X_A, X_B) + \mathbf{C}(X_A, Y_B) +
\mathbf{C}(Y_A, X_B) - \mathbf{C}(Y_A, Y_B)\leq 2,
where C denotes correlation.
Experimental tests of Bell inequalities support the failure of local
realism, and in particular, that some of unexpected correlations
suggested by the EPR thought experiment do in fact occur. However, by
the no-communication theorem, it is impossible for Alice to communicate
information to Bob (or vice versa) in violation of relativity.
Bill Hobba
"Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
news:42d2b539$1...@news.vic.com...
Nope. He is asserting that when particle A is measured it amounts to an in
principle measurement of particle B in the EPR set up. That is only true if
you hold to the view QM particles have properties independent of an actual
measurement. Measuring particle A does not count as a measurement of
particle B. In the EPR experiment the particles are entangled and the set
up is to examine correlations between measurements of particle A and
particle B - not to examine measuring particle A and B at the same time ie
the experimental setup does not enable 100% simultaneous measurement of each
particle which is what you would need to claim that particle A and B are
measured at the same time. What Bells inequality proves is local reality
and QM are incompatible. Since the experiment came down on the side of QM
it shows local reality is false. What people claim is that it shows
locality is at fault - but clearly the other part of the assumption of local
reality can also logically be attacked - namely reality out there
independent of measurement exists. If you reject that then locality is
saved. The simple fact is that aspects experiment did not disprove
locality.
>
> If nothing affects a change on the 2 particles before measurement, then
> whatever the spin measurement of particle A turns out to be, particle B
> *MUST* be the opposite (Pauli exclusion), right?
Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement. That is
the reality part of the assumption of local reality.
>
> The problem is that according to QM, neither A nor B separately have any
> definite state until either A or B is measured, but the system AB is known
> to have neutral spin, right?
The problem is that it is an entangled state.
>
> p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state of
> particle B is known (EPR paradox).
Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement.
> This leads to the conclusion that either
> 1) the particles communicated at superluminal speed, or 2) the state of
both
> particles pre-existed measurement, right?
No. It leads to the conclusion that if you wish to preserve locality you
need to attack the reality bit of local reality and assume, for example,
that a measurement of particle A does not constitute an in principle
measurement of particle B because it has no properties independent of direct
measurement.
>
> BH is countering this conjecture with the notion that even the properties
of
> A & B which exhibit the spin states do not exist before measurement,
right?
With caveats yes. This is examined in more detail in the Kochen Speker
theorem which shows QM is not compatible with value definiteness and non
contextuality - both can not be true. I am claiming that value definiteness
can be rejected and hence there is nothing to be non local.
>
> Bill, if I'm not too far off the train of thought in this conversation,
then
> answer me this: How can it be that the properties of particles A & B do
not
> exist if it is known that the state of the system AB, as exhibited by
their
> relative spin properties, is neutral?
First answer me this - how can it be that the properties of anything can
exist independant of direct measurement - not inferred measurement - but
direct measurement? You will find that there is no way of experimentally
distinguishing between the two.
> If both particles are known to be 1/2
> spin particles, and the sum of their spin is known to be 0, then how can
it
> be that their individual spin state properties do not exist?
How can it be that they exist independent of direct measurment?
>
> I can accept that QM cannot say that the properties exist simply for the
> fact that QM can't say anything about anything that wasn't measured, but
> making a claim that physical properties do not exist until they're
measured
> is like saying my wife isn't wearing clothes until I look at her, little
> more than an enticing thought, not having any bearing on reality.
Then acquaint yourself with the Kochen Specker theorem - nature is wieder
than you thought.
>
> Question:
> Why is it so hard for physicists to simply answer "I don't know" when it
> comes to questions they have no data to answer?
>
Let me get this straight - you are claiming that admitting it is not
possible to know if an object has properties independent of measurement is
saying I know? You are confused.
> Let me put it another way.
> Is there any way to prove that an unmeasured particle has no properties?
The same way as you would prove it does.
Bill
>
> R.
>
>
p6
Hey, dude. I didn't say simultaneous measurement of both. What
I'm describing is simply this. Supposed we have entangled pair,
one with me, the other with you in pluto. Before I measure mine
(or yours), there is no definite state, this means it is random. So
if my measurement produces up spin. If you look at your electron in
pluto later, it should be down spin. If my measurement produces
down spin, if you look at your electron later, it should be up spin.
My question is how do the wave function be extended across
Earth and Pluto. Unless you are saying that when I measure my
electron to be spin up. And you later look at your electron,
it can also be spin up? No. QM says the wavefunction can maintain
the neutriality.. meaning one is always up, one is always down.
Right. So how can they maintain the correlations. This is my
main question. I know value definiteness and non-contextuality
is not true in QM. I'm concerned about the final results and
correlerations of the spin or polorization in case photons are
used like Alain Aspect.
About the site you shared. I'm starting to read it. But like
I said. I'm waiting for a book arriving this weekend with full
mathemetical derivation of the Schroedinger Equations which most
layman book never do. So I got this QM textbook book with more
mathematical details of the calculations of the Schro Equations so
I can understand completely for example the mathematical arguments of
Kochen Specker Theorem and others. I promise I will look into all
this with full details. My life would be a lot easier if you are
right since i don't have to deal with superluminal correlerations
in quantum system which Tiller did in his adjustment of physics
model to accomodate the existence of qi.
p6
Bill Hobba
Only if you hold to reality independent of measurement can you say it has up
spin - if not then you must measure it - not assert that if you did measure
it what it would be.
> My question is how do the wave function be extended across
> Earth and Pluto.
To even ask such a question you need to first demonstrate the wave function
is more than just a calculational device.
> Unless you are saying that when I measure my
> electron to be spin up. And you later look at your electron,
> it can also be spin up? No.
I have made it perfectly clear what I ma saying. AFAICS for you own reasons
you do not wish to accept it.
> QM says the wavefunction can maintain
> the neutriality.. meaning one is always up, one is always down.
I am not contesting that - it is your hidden assumption I am contesting -
namely it has properties independent of measurement and the wavefunction is
more than just a calculational devise. The state is what exists - the
wavefunction is simply a representation expanded in explicitly stated
eigenstates.
> Right. So how can they maintain the correlations. This is my
> main question.
QM does not answer that question. It merely says if it is measured what the
results will be.
> I know value definiteness and non-contextuality
> is not true in QM. I'm concerned about the final results and
> correlerations of the spin or polorization in case photons are
> used like Alain Aspect.
>
> About the site you shared. I'm starting to read it. But like
> I said. I'm waiting for a book arriving this weekend with full
> mathemetical derivation of the Schroedinger Equations which most
> layman book never do.
In modern presentations the Schrodenger equation is not derived - it is the
result of the generators of the gauge transformation associated with time
dependence. This leads to a natural equation that has all the properties we
could ask of an energy operator - see
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
in particular study
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/04_Gauging.pdf
'It can be shown that the generator of the time translation operation is
just the energy of the particle. Similarly, the generators of the
translations along the three spatial axes are the components of the linear
momentum of the particle along those axes. And, the generators of the
rotations around the three spatial axes are the components of the particle's
angular linear momentum around those axes.'
Bill
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state of
> > particle B is known (EPR paradox).
>
> Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement.
Rejecting locality or rejecting realism, which would Occam prefer?
p6
I think you have misunderstood my descriptions. I didn't say it
has properties independent of measurement. As another example.
Someone gave us a fish in boxes, he kept the head in one box. The
body in another box. Then we are separted in opposite beaches of
the Bahamas. I'm not saying that when I open my box and know it is
head, I know yours is body. I agree with you that before opening
our box. What is inside is combination of head and body.. in ghostly
quantum states. It is only when I open it up for measurement that
either a head or body would materialize. Get this now? We are
having semantics mismatched. It is just an example anyway. I know
macro objects can decohere.
About the wavefunction being more than a calculation device.
I am thinking it may be. I really think that the so called qi
field is part of the constitutions of the wavefunction. The qi
particles are its quanta. And there are levels of degrees. For
example. When I am treating a person aura. I am treating his
macro wave functions which made up a holofield that is related
to the chemicals in the body. However I know I can't affect
the wave functions of his DNA or else I can cause cancers by
mingling them up. In this case. We need a higher qi field (we
call it kundalini) to influence micro wave function. This kundalini
qi field is more difficult to master. Because when one can do
it. I think one can influence the amount of particles in the
double slit such that we can make the left or right side more
concentrated. I have heard of Adepts who can become invisible..
because they are simply controlling the wave functions of the
photons around his body. Here we must different between higher
and lower qi field. Lower qi field (the normal qi) controls macro
wave function while higher qi field (kundalini) controls
micro wave functions or higher resolution. Get it.
Don't worry if it's too wierd. Just ignore it for now.
> In modern presentations the Schrodenger equation is not derived - it is the
> result of the generators of the gauge transformation associated with time
> dependence. This leads to a natural equation that has all the properties we
> could ask of an energy operator - see
> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
> in particular study
> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/04_Gauging.pdf
What I mean by derivation is atomic model wise. Like how Schroedinger
uses a lot of ideas from Bohr and Born in its mathematical
constructions as well as seeing how Matrix Mechanics, Quantum
Algebra, etc. is related to it all.
I'll read all your references as I realize I need no less than
mastery of QM first before going to other concepts such as
quantum field theory, etc.
p
Bill Hobba
If you believe that by measuring particle A you have also measured particle
B by inference then you must believe particle B has properties independent
of measurement.
> As another example.
> Someone gave us a fish in boxes, he kept the head in one box. The
> body in another box. Then we are separted in opposite beaches of
> the Bahamas. I'm not saying that when I open my box and know it is
> head, I know yours is body. I agree with you that before opening
> our box. What is inside is combination of head and body.. in ghostly
> quantum states.
Since fish heads and bodies are classical objects they are not in ghostly
quantum states.
> It is only when I open it up for measurement that
> either a head or body would materialize. Get this now?
Nope. Since the head and the body are classical objects we know they have
properties independent of measurement because that is one of the things that
we define classical to be.
> We are having semantics mismatched.
Maybe. But I still think you are not thinking clearly.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121145303....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why don't you ask him? I know which I prefer - 'reality' in the usual
sense. The reason is the Kocehen Specker theorem which proves QM is
incompatible with two properties we normally associate with our usual view
of 'realty' - namely - value defiantness and non contextuality.
Bill
Schoenfeld
My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
properties (i.e. energy)?
Can you please teach me how it works?
> Bill
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
>
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <sto...@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
> news:f7nAe.5564$rF5...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:eDiAe.37025$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
<snip>
>> >
>> > Since QM does not imply non locality you are addressing a problem that
>> > does
>> > not exist - http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/quest.html
>> >
>> > 'Is quantum mechanics nonlocal? This depends on what one means by
>> > "nonlocal." Two separated quantum systems A and B can be in an
>> > entangled
>> > state that lacks any classical analog. However, it is better to think
>> > of
>> > this as a nonclassical rather than as a nonlocal state, since doing
>> > something to system A cannot have any influence on system B as long as
> the
>> > two are sufficiently far apart. In particular, quantum theory gives no
>> > support to the notion that the world is infested by mysterious
> long-range
>> > influences that propagate faster thaan the speed of light. Claims to
>> > the
>> > contrary are based upon an inconsistent or inadequate formulations of
>> > quantum principles, typically with reference to measurements.'
>>
>> Funny, I had read somewhere that Bell/Aspect proved nonlocality
>> is a consequence of QM.
>
> One can get that view from popular accounts. However they proved it as a
> consequence of QM and the assumption of 'local realism' (sometimes not
> explicitly stated but always assumed)
> http://www.answers.com/topic/bell-s-theorem
And that is not a popular account? ;)
> Local realism may or may not be correct - it would seem to be beyond
> experimental confirmation. Indeed the Kochen Speker theorem
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
> says that two properties we normally associate with local realism, namely
> value defiteness and non conceptuality, can not both be true if QM is
> correct. Which just goes to show it may be experimentally investigateable
> after all. The out of course is what you define as local realism.
Thanks for the links. I'll have to peruse them.
<snip>
--
rb
p6
The moment I peek at my electron, the wavefunction collapse
and your electron pops up with results that correlates with
my electron. It doesn't mean it has properties before
measurement. It is what is after that counts.
>
> > As another example.
> > Someone gave us a fish in boxes, he kept the head in one box. The
> > body in another box. Then we are separted in opposite beaches of
> > the Bahamas. I'm not saying that when I open my box and know it is
> > head, I know yours is body. I agree with you that before opening
> > our box. What is inside is combination of head and body.. in ghostly
> > quantum states.
>
> Since fish heads and bodies are classical objects they are not in ghostly
> quantum states.
Of course. Gee. It's just an example. That's why I added that
macro object can decohere. Our original object is electron
spin correlations. Maybe I should say that prior to measurement,
our "target" is in ghostly quantum states with no definite
properties.
Anyway. I remember Penrose suggesting that macro objects
don't maintain coherence because of gravity.. which most don't
agree.
p6
Ranando King
<snipped for brevity>
> Nope. He is asserting that when particle A is measured it amounts to an
in
> principle measurement of particle B in the EPR set up. That is only true
if
> you hold to the view QM particles have properties independent of an actual
> measurement. Measuring particle A does not count as a measurement of
> particle B. In the EPR experiment the particles are entangled and the set
> up is to examine correlations between measurements of particle A and
> particle B - not to examine measuring particle A and B at the same time ie
> the experimental setup does not enable 100% simultaneous measurement of
each
> particle which is what you would need to claim that particle A and B are
> measured at the same time. What Bells inequality proves is local reality
> and QM are incompatible. Since the experiment came down on the side of QM
> it shows local reality is false. What people claim is that it shows
> locality is at fault - but clearly the other part of the assumption of
local
> reality can also logically be attacked - namely reality out there
> independent of measurement exists. If you reject that then locality is
> saved. The simple fact is that aspects experiment did not disprove
> locality.
Why is the concept of locality preferable over the concept of local reality?
Think of it this way. Local reality is only the notion that you don't have
to measure a property to know that it exists. It's helpful to know that an
electron always has a negative charge, whether or not it is being detected
by something. The fact that particles seem to behave in a statistical
fashion can (and sometimes is) viewed as a hint that there are outside
effects not being considered. Also, the concept of a field extending to
infinity implies mathematically that distant objects interact directly. The
interaction may be small, but it's only a scientific notion that these
distant interactions are negligable. There are conceivable circumstances
where a collection of distant object will have a net effect on a local
object such that the local object behaves in a way inconsistant with its
local environment. This defies locality.
> >
> > If nothing affects a change on the 2 particles before measurement, then
> > whatever the spin measurement of particle A turns out to be, particle B
> > *MUST* be the opposite (Pauli exclusion), right?
>
> Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement. That is
> the reality part of the assumption of local reality.
If you don't make such an assumption, then the consequence is that the net
spin of system AB is whatever the measured spin of A was since B had no
properties. That would be in direct violation of conservation rules if it
was known at setup that the net spin of system AB was neutral. Consider
this. Dismissing local reality has a devastating consequence on
measurements. If you assume that the properties of an object do not exist
until measurement, then it becomes impossible to predict the measured state
of any particle separately when it is part of a system. Also, it becomes
impossible to predict the measured result of a newly entangled system
comprised of 1 known and 1 unknown. This makes all the math pretty much
useless.
The gist of what you said is that:
0_AB = 1/2_A + NA_B
With NA in this case meaning "not applicable". That makes no sense
mathematically.
> >
> > The problem is that according to QM, neither A nor B separately have any
> > definite state until either A or B is measured, but the system AB is
known
> > to have neutral spin, right?
>
> The problem is that it is an entangled state.
I said that in long fashion. You didn't answer the question though.
> >
> > p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state of
> > particle B is known (EPR paradox).
>
> Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement.
>
> > This leads to the conclusion that either
> > 1) the particles communicated at superluminal speed, or 2) the state of
> both
> > particles pre-existed measurement, right?
>
> No. It leads to the conclusion that if you wish to preserve locality you
> need to attack the reality bit of local reality and assume, for example,
> that a measurement of particle A does not constitute an in principle
> measurement of particle B because it has no properties independent of
direct
> measurement.
The result of ditching local reality is that in this example, it is
impossible to predict what the measured result of B will be, even though
it's last interaction is know to only have been to entangle itself with A.
If you know the state of the whole system, and measure the state of part of
the system, to what do you attribute the remaining system deficit if the
remainder of the system has no properties?
> >
> > BH is countering this conjecture with the notion that even the
properties
> of
> > A & B which exhibit the spin states do not exist before measurement,
> right?
>
> With caveats yes. This is examined in more detail in the Kochen Speker
> theorem which shows QM is not compatible with value definiteness and non
> contextuality - both can not be true. I am claiming that value
definiteness
> can be rejected and hence there is nothing to be non local.
If you could, humor this idiot and tell me why it's considered impossible to
derive and test rules if you dismiss (or modify) the current concept of
locality.
> >
> > Bill, if I'm not too far off the train of thought in this conversation,
> then
> > answer me this: How can it be that the properties of particles A & B do
> not
> > exist if it is known that the state of the system AB, as exhibited by
> their
> > relative spin properties, is neutral?
>
> First answer me this - how can it be that the properties of anything can
> exist independant of direct measurement - not inferred measurement - but
> direct measurement? You will find that there is no way of experimentally
> distinguishing between the two.
Consider this. If the exact same ingredients and methodology are used in the
exact same quantities when baking a cake, there's no way to tell whether the
cake was baked from a box mix or from scratch. You have to examine the
refuse to know for certain. However, that does not change the fact that the
cake was either baked from a box mix or baked from scratch. Just because you
don't know which doesn't mean the property doesn't exist. Now, Pauli
exclusion being what it is, if there is a system known to be comprised of 2
cakes known to be made from 1 box mix and 1 scratch mix, and we measure and
determine that cake A is a box mix, do we still state that cake B has no
properties? With locality being what it is, all other cake mixes are too far
away to have any effect on the AB cake system. If you dismiss local reality,
then all you know is cake B exists and the scratch cake mix cannot be
accounted for. There's an Occam's razor violation in there somewhere.
> > If both particles are known to be 1/2
> > spin particles, and the sum of their spin is known to be 0, then how can
> it
> > be that their individual spin state properties do not exist?
>
> How can it be that they exist independent of direct measurment?
Let me answer your question with a question. Does an electron always have a
charge? Is a neutron always electrically neutral? Does a proton always have
a magnetic field? Is a photon always massless? If you answer yes to any of
these, then you've clearly accepted that at least in these cases, local
reality holds. You can't hold a concept like local reality in a
superposition of states like you do with quantum particles, so it's either
true or it's not. If it's not true then you have to question a lot of rules
since you can't know anything about anything without measuring, no matter
how many times you get the same result. If it *is* true, then locality
either needs to be dismissed or re-evaluated. I'd rather see the latter...
> >
> > I can accept that QM cannot say that the properties exist simply for the
> > fact that QM can't say anything about anything that wasn't measured, but
> > making a claim that physical properties do not exist until they're
> measured
> > is like saying my wife isn't wearing clothes until I look at her, little
> > more than an enticing thought, not having any bearing on reality.
>
> Then acquaint yourself with the Kochen Specker theorem - nature is wieder
> than you thought.
I did. The Kochen Specker theorem is a direct consequence of the concept of
locality as it is currently defined. I indirectly commented on that above.
> >
> > Question:
> > Why is it so hard for physicists to simply answer "I don't know" when it
> > comes to questions they have no data to answer?
> >
>
> Let me get this straight - you are claiming that admitting it is not
> possible to know if an object has properties independent of measurement is
> saying I know? You are confused.
No. Everything you've said above either states or implies that particle B
"has no properties" before measurement. It would be different to say that
the value of the properties are indeterminate or unknown, but to claim the
properties don't even exist is a bit of a stretch. If the properties don't
exist before measurement, then what is being measured? If causality is to
hold, then the existance of the property must preceed its measurement.
> > Let me put it another way.
> > Is there any way to prove that an unmeasured particle has no properties?
>
> The same way as you would prove it does.
Logical analysis would conclude that the property must preceed the
measurement or violate causality. That's about as close as anyone can get to
a proof. What logical/mathematical basis is there for asserting that the
properties do not exist before measurement?
R.
Bill Hobba
Again you are missing the point. I will repeat it one last time and leave
it at that because it is obvious you have some kind of metal block about the
issue. In order to say it has spin down even though you do not measure it
you must believe it has properties independent of measurement - such is very
simple logic. If you can not see it then - what can I say - each reader
must make up their own mind.
>
> >
> > > As another example.
> > > Someone gave us a fish in boxes, he kept the head in one box. The
> > > body in another box. Then we are separted in opposite beaches of
> > > the Bahamas. I'm not saying that when I open my box and know it is
> > > head, I know yours is body. I agree with you that before opening
> > > our box. What is inside is combination of head and body.. in ghostly
> > > quantum states.
> >
> > Since fish heads and bodies are classical objects they are not in
ghostly
> > quantum states.
>
> Of course. Gee. It's just an example. That's why I added that
> macro object can decohere. Our original object is electron
> spin correlations. Maybe I should say that prior to measurement,
> our "target" is in ghostly quantum states with no definite
> properties.
The point is you must couch your objections is terms of experiments that in
principle can be performed and in terms of interpetations that QM forces
onto us. For example the Schrodenger cat paradox is not a paradox once it
is realized the Von Neumann cut need not be set at the cat - yet few people
who discuss it ever actually point it out.
>
> Anyway. I remember Penrose suggesting that macro objects
> don't maintain coherence because of gravity.. which most don't
> agree.
The thing with Penrose's ideas is they may be true - we can not tell at this
stage.
Bill
>
> p6
>
p6
I know you would say that. My argument is that as the wave
function collapse, my electron correlates with your electron
at non_local or possibly superluminal speed. This is why when
I got spin up, you got spin down. When I got spin down, you got
spin up. Before measurement our electron doesn't have any
properties. It is when one of us look at it or measure it
that the non-local correlations occur. EPR is incorrect precisely
because reality is non-local as Aspect and other experiments
show.
p6
Bill Hobba
Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we can never
say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie what is
happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all sorts of
hidden assumptions. One assumption is that it has properties that do not
depend on if you are measuring it or not. Such is called value
definiteness. Another assumption is those properties do not depend on what
we choose to measure - such is called non contextuality. These are
assumptions we usually unconsciously make. But what the Kocehen-Specker
theorem shows is that QM forbids both of these assumptions to be true at the
same time. Thus if QM is true our usual concept of 'realism' is false -
because value definiteness and non contextuality are implicit assumptions of
what we mean by 'realism' - at least in this context. One can say that
locality is violated in Aspects experiments if one adheres to value
definiteness. But you must also reject non contextuality since both can not
be true. It is highly doubtful that those that wish to maintain 'realism'
want to reject non cotextuality so those that wish to maintain QM has
'spooky action at a distance' must also maintain that properties must
depend on what we choose to measure. However you will find those that
maintain QM forces non locality onto us do not wish to abandon non
contextuality - they want it all. But QM says you can not have both.
Bill
>
> > Bill
>
atom...@yahoo.com
Not exactly. One can accept non-local effects and at the same time
abandon non-contextuality too. How. When I made measurement of
my electron and it is spin up (random result since the electron
doesn't have any properties before measurement). The correleration
is instantly communicted to your electron faster than light in an
automatic manner which should give you spin down. This means
there was no properties in your electron before I made my
measurment. Because it is only conveyed to your electron
non-locality when I precipitate my electron out of the ghostly
quantum states (which let me emphasize means there was no
properties before measurement in both of our electrons, the
opposite spin correlations is only available at the wave
function holographic template itself.. not on our electrons).
p6
Bill Hobba
We are not discussing what is preferable we are discussing if QM forces
spooky action at a distance onto us - it does not. But as an aside realise
if you wish to maintain value definteness then you must reject non
contextuality ie you must accept that properties depend on what you choose
to measure.
> Think of it this way. Local reality is only the notion that you don't have
> to measure a property to know that it exists. It's helpful to know that an
> electron always has a negative charge, whether or not it is being detected
> by something. The fact that particles seem to behave in a statistical
> fashion can (and sometimes is) viewed as a hint that there are outside
> effects not being considered. Also, the concept of a field extending to
> infinity implies mathematically that distant objects interact directly.
The
> interaction may be small, but it's only a scientific notion that these
> distant interactions are negligable. There are conceivable circumstances
> where a collection of distant object will have a net effect on a local
> object such that the local object behaves in a way inconsistant with its
> local environment. This defies locality.
>
> > >
> > > If nothing affects a change on the 2 particles before measurement,
then
> > > whatever the spin measurement of particle A turns out to be, particle
B
> > > *MUST* be the opposite (Pauli exclusion), right?
> >
> > Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement. That
is
> > the reality part of the assumption of local reality.
>
> If you don't make such an assumption, then the consequence is that the net
> spin of system AB is whatever the measured spin of A was since B had no
> properties.
No - the assumption is it has no properties until you measure it. When you
measure particle A to have say spin 1/2 then you can say it has spin 1/2 -
not before. All QM does is tell use what it will measure (and associated
probabilities) if you measured it - it does not tell us it has that property
if we decide to measure it or not - such is the assumption of value
defiteness. The fact that we know for sure what it will measure if we
measure it in no way changed what QM says.
> That would be in direct violation of conservation rules if it
> was known at setup that the net spin of system AB was neutral.
If you believe that object have no properties until they are measured then
the conservation laws only hold for measurements.
> Consider
> this. Dismissing local reality has a devastating consequence on
> measurements. If you assume that the properties of an object do not exist
> until measurement, then it becomes impossible to predict the measured
state
> of any particle separately when it is part of a system.
That is exactly what QM tells us - we generally can only say what the result
of a measurement will be with a certain probability.
> Also, it becomes
> impossible to predict the measured result of a newly entangled system
> comprised of 1 known and 1 unknown. This makes all the math pretty much
> useless.
Since QM is precisely like that and the math is useful your assertion is
trivially disproven.
>
> The gist of what you said is that:
>
> 0_AB = 1/2_A + NA_B
>
> With NA in this case meaning "not applicable". That makes no sense
> mathematically.
It depends on you interpretation of the symbols - if you interpret it to
mean the result of measurement then no problem arises.
>
> > >
> > > The problem is that according to QM, neither A nor B separately have
any
> > > definite state until either A or B is measured, but the system AB is
> known
> > > to have neutral spin, right?
> >
> > The problem is that it is an entangled state.
>
> I said that in long fashion. You didn't answer the question though.
I thought I did but I will repeat it again. QM talks about the results of
measurements. When we have an entangled spin state what it says is if one
is found to have up spin when we measure it the other will be found to have
down spin when we measure it. It does not say anything about the spin when
we do not measure it. You can assume it has such properties independent of
measurement if you wish and what Aspect showed is that if you do then
locality is violated. But there is nothing in QM that says we must assume
it has properties when we are not measuring it. Indeed what QM tells us via
the Kochen Specker theorem is that if you wish to maintain it has properties
independent of measurement you must assume those properties depend on what
we choose to measure - a position those that adhere to 'realism' are
unlikely to want - but QM forces it onto us if we accept it has properties
when we are not measuring it.
>
> > >
> > > p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state of
> > > particle B is known (EPR paradox).
> >
> > Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement.
> >
> > > This leads to the conclusion that either
> > > 1) the particles communicated at superluminal speed, or 2) the state
of
> > both
> > > particles pre-existed measurement, right?
> >
> > No. It leads to the conclusion that if you wish to preserve locality
you
> > need to attack the reality bit of local reality and assume, for example,
> > that a measurement of particle A does not constitute an in principle
> > measurement of particle B because it has no properties independent of
> direct
> > measurement.
>
> The result of ditching local reality is that in this example, it is
> impossible to predict what the measured result of B will be,
You logic is erroneous. If you believe it has no properties independent of
measurement then you can not say anything about it until you measure it.
> even though
> it's last interaction is know to only have been to entangle itself with A.
> If you know the state of the whole system, and measure the state of part
of
> the system, to what do you attribute the remaining system deficit if the
> remainder of the system has no properties?
>
> > >
> > > BH is countering this conjecture with the notion that even the
> properties
> > of
> > > A & B which exhibit the spin states do not exist before measurement,
> > right?
> >
> > With caveats yes. This is examined in more detail in the Kochen Speker
> > theorem which shows QM is not compatible with value definiteness and non
> > contextuality - both can not be true. I am claiming that value
> definiteness
> > can be rejected and hence there is nothing to be non local.
>
> If you could, humor this idiot and tell me why it's considered impossible
to
> derive and test rules if you dismiss (or modify) the current concept of
> locality.
I am not rejecting locality - it is those that wish to maintain QM forces
spooky action at a distance onto us that maintain that. I reject value
definiteness (the realism part of local realism) - that objects have
properties independent of if we measure it or not.
You forget - I do not reject locality - I reject value definiteness - a
property that by the definition of classical classical objects possess.
>
> > > If both particles are known to be 1/2
> > > spin particles, and the sum of their spin is known to be 0, then how
can
> > it
> > > be that their individual spin state properties do not exist?
> >
> > How can it be that they exist independent of direct measurment?
>
> Let me answer your question with a question. Does an electron always have
a
> charge? Is a neutron always electrically neutral? Does a proton always
have
> a magnetic field? Is a photon always massless?
I answer I do not know - all we can say is as far as we can tell they do -
by which I mean every time we ever measure it it has those properties - not
that they have those properties independent of measurement.. Perhaps they
emerge via primary state diffusion - see links I give later.
> If you answer yes to any of
> these, then you've clearly accepted that at least in these cases, local
> reality holds. You can't hold a concept like local reality in a
> superposition of states like you do with quantum particles, so it's either
> true or it's not. If it's not true then you have to question a lot of
rules
> since you can't know anything about anything without measuring, no matter
> how many times you get the same result. If it *is* true, then locality
> either needs to be dismissed or re-evaluated. I'd rather see the latter...
>
> > >
> > > I can accept that QM cannot say that the properties exist simply for
the
> > > fact that QM can't say anything about anything that wasn't measured,
but
> > > making a claim that physical properties do not exist until they're
> > measured
> > > is like saying my wife isn't wearing clothes until I look at her,
little
> > > more than an enticing thought, not having any bearing on reality.
> >
> > Then acquaint yourself with the Kochen Specker theorem - nature is
wieder
> > than you thought.
>
> I did. The Kochen Specker theorem is a direct consequence of the concept
of
> locality as it is currently defined. I indirectly commented on that above.
The Kochen-Specker theorem has nothing to do with locality - it shows you
can not hold to both value definiteness and non contextuality from the
principles of QM.
>
> > >
> > > Question:
> > > Why is it so hard for physicists to simply answer "I don't know" when
it
> > > comes to questions they have no data to answer?
> > >
> >
> > Let me get this straight - you are claiming that admitting it is not
> > possible to know if an object has properties independent of measurement
is
> > saying I know? You are confused.
>
> No. Everything you've said above either states or implies that particle B
> "has no properties" before measurement. It would be different to say that
> the value of the properties are indeterminate or unknown, but to claim the
> properties don't even exist is a bit of a stretch. If the properties don't
> exist before measurement, then what is being measured? If causality is to
> hold, then the existance of the property must preceed its measurement.
To claim properties depend on what we choose to measure is a bit of a
stretch as well - yet QM forces that onto us if you want to adhere to value
definiteness.
>
> > > Let me put it another way.
> > > Is there any way to prove that an unmeasured particle has no
properties?
> >
> > The same way as you would prove it does.
>
> Logical analysis would conclude that the property must preceed the
> measurement or violate causality.
It does not violate casualty. In QM we can maintain measurements are the
result of the interaction of a classical apparatus with a quantum state.
This is at least as good an explanation as it has this property that the
measurement tells us about. IMHO it is better because it may actually tell
up how it results - the best current guess is quantum state diffusion.
Indeed a very interesting hypothesis is primary state diffusion which
explains measurements as stochastic processes from fluctuations at about the
plank scale -
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9508021.
What makes this hypothesis attractive, at least to me, is it is
experimentally distinguishable from standard QM. IMHO a single experiment
is worth more than a million years of philosophical debate.
Bill
Bill Hobba
<atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121299043.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Without reading and commenting on the rest of course you can - my concern is
if QM forces non locality onto us - it does not.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Your idea of a popular account and mine may differ. Popular accounts
usually do not include mathematical detail and a careful statement of the
actual assumptions.
Thanks
Bill
p6
It is because of your condition of non-locality. QM may
disallow it because QM rejects value definiteness and
noncontextuality which non-locality you say need. This is
only true if you give that property to the electron. But in my
view, wave function is not just mathematical tool but
has a higher reality on its own, and it is where the
information of spin correlations is located. When you
shine light in glass, how come exactly 4% of photons
are reflected. What controls the statitistic, I believe it is
this hidden wave function dynamics. Of course I'm
looking for experimental validation of that belief. So the
differences in our view came from this. We both agree
though that before measure, the electrons don't have
any properties.
Tell you what. If you are right that wave function doesn't
have objective quantum existence but just mathematical
tool. Then it can mean there is hidden atomic dynamics
in which qi can affect biological system.. because the
only way qi can affect is by altering the atoms or molecules.
So if it's not wave function. It must be another hidden one.
Anyway. I'll walk this path on my own. I agree most of
what you said though. It is only because I consider wave
function as real that we differ in our interpretations.
I won't mind if proving wrong though. I only want to
understand how qi affects the atom, that's the only purpose
why I came to study physics.
Peace
p6
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
That page seems to be a copy of wikipedia and
I will agree that wikipedia is quite superior to most
popular accounts. (Wikipedia is a pretty cool thing.)
--
rb
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
> > conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
> > properties (i.e. energy)?
> >
> > Can you please teach me how it works?
>
> Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
> measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we can never
> say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie what is
> happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all sorts of
> hidden assumptions.
Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
energy conservation.
By measuring an energy state of a local system you can deduce _a
priori_ and _without measurement_ that at least 1 other system _exists_
with _real energy_ in order for the energy of the combined systems to
remain conserved.
Conservation of energy demands realism, in my opinion.
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
> > conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
> > properties (i.e. energy)?
> >
> > Can you please teach me how it works?
>
> Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
> measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we can never
> say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie what is
> happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all sorts of
> hidden assumptions.
Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
energy conservation.
By measuring an energy state of a local system you can deduce _a
priori_ and _without measurement_ that at least 1 other system _exists_
with _real energy_ in order for the energy of the combined systems to
remain conserved.
Conservation of energy demands realism, in my opinion.
> One assumption is that it has properties that do not
p6
That's why I think a logical solution is that the properties are store
in the wave function which lets assume is more than a mathematical
entity and exist in higher dimension that uses holographic
representation. This means before measurements the electron
don't have any properties as they are in pure ghostly states. Upon
measurement the wave function bestows the properties back to the
electrons. If this is not the case, how do the electrons know they
are electrons and not santa claus.
p6
Bill Hobba
>
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> > > My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
> > > conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
> > > properties (i.e. energy)?
> > >
> > > Can you please teach me how it works?
> >
> > Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
> > measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we can
never
> > say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie
what is
> > happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all
sorts of
> > hidden assumptions.
>
> Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
> energy conservation.
Wrong - in non inertial FOR's for example energy is not conserved. Noether
sorted all this out 90 years ago - energy conservation is simply an
expression of underlying symetries in the lagrangain.
Bill
bz
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> I know you would say that. My argument is that as the wave
> function collapse, my electron correlates with your electron
> at non_local or possibly superluminal speed. This is why when
> I got spin up, you got spin down. When I got spin down, you got
> spin up. Before measurement our electron doesn't have any
> properties. It is when one of us look at it or measure it
> that the non-local correlations occur. EPR is incorrect precisely
> because reality is non-local as Aspect and other experiments
> show.
>
I take a jewelers saw and cut a coin so that I end up with two half coins,
one has heads/blank the other tails/blank.
I mail each coin to a friend in a different location, along with a note,
explaining what I did.
As soon as one friend opens the envelope, the immediately know what the
other friend has received.
FTM (faster than mail) communications without any collapse of a wave
function.
I don't know which coin went where until one envelope is opened.
Same with the entangled photons. One was sent each direction, We don't know
which went where until we detect one, but the detection doesn't change
anything except our state of ignorance.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121316621....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > > > My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
> > > > conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
> > > > properties (i.e. energy)?
> > > >
> > > > Can you please teach me how it works?
> > >
> > > Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
> > > measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we can
> never
> > > say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie
> what is
> > > happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all
> sorts of
> > > hidden assumptions.
> >
> > Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
> > energy conservation.
>
> Wrong - in non inertial FOR's for example energy is not conserved.
To me your statement seems like lunacy, but feel free to elaborate.
> Noether
> sorted all this out 90 years ago - energy conservation is simply an
> expression of underlying symetries in the lagrangain.
Yes, it is _equivalent_ (hint: not defined as).
But you are drifting from what was put to you.
You said:
" In order to say B is affected by the measurement of A you need to
assume at has properties that exist independent of measurement -
measuring A is not the same as measuring B. If it only has properties
when measured then there is nothing to effect non locally. "
And I simply put to you:
" By measuring the energy state of a local system you can deduce a
priori and *without measurement* that at least 1 other system must
*exist* with some *energy state* in order for the energy of the
combined systems to remain conserved. "
And that obviously contradicts your statement with extreme prejudice,
don't you think?
> Bill
Ranando King
>
> "Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:42d52...@news.vic.com...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:QiDAe.37877$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snipped for brevity>
> > Why is the concept of locality preferable over the concept of local
> reality?
>
> We are not discussing what is preferable we are discussing if QM forces
> spooky action at a distance onto us - it does not. But as an aside
realise
> if you wish to maintain value definteness then you must reject non
> contextuality ie you must accept that properties depend on what you choose
> to measure.
First, you evaded the question, and quite skillfully at that! Now please
answer it. There's a point to be made depending on your answer. Second, the
fact is that QM is a model strictly tied to measurements. It cannot state in
any which way, form, or fashion the nature of something unmeasured unless
that something is the result of something measured, in which case, an
inference can be made.
Ok. You called the expectation of properties an assumption. Isn't it more of
a logical inference? Think about it. You know from conservation rules that
this entangled pair must have a net 0 spin. There are 2 particles, and the
only spin, states available to these particles are +/- 1/2. The math implies
that there must be properties such that one particle has a +1/2 state and
the other a -1/2 state so that the net result can remain 0. Therefore by
inference, the property of spin must exist for both particles. ? + ? !=
spin. It has to be spin + spin. That's nothing more than math. Since science
predicates itself on the math, how can you possibly even assert that the
properties of the particles don't exist?
> > That would be in direct violation of conservation rules if it
> > was known at setup that the net spin of system AB was neutral.
>
> If you believe that object have no properties until they are measured then
> the conservation laws only hold for measurements.
It's not a matter of belief. Save belief for religions. The existance of the
properties is a matter of logical deduction.
> > Consider
> > this. Dismissing local reality has a devastating consequence on
> > measurements. If you assume that the properties of an object do not
exist
> > until measurement, then it becomes impossible to predict the measured
> state
> > of any particle separately when it is part of a system.
>
> That is exactly what QM tells us - we generally can only say what the
result
> of a measurement will be with a certain probability.
That's perfectly fine. I've got no problem with that. The problem I have is
that those like you, studying QM, assume things that aren't logical or even
mathematically sound for the nature of things yet unmeasured.
> > Also, it becomes
> > impossible to predict the measured result of a newly entangled system
> > comprised of 1 known and 1 unknown. This makes all the math pretty much
> > useless.
>
> Since QM is precisely like that and the math is useful your assertion is
> trivially disproven.
>
> >
> > The gist of what you said is that:
> >
> > 0_AB = 1/2_A + NA_B
> >
> > With NA in this case meaning "not applicable". That makes no sense
> > mathematically.
>
> It depends on you interpretation of the symbols - if you interpret it to
> mean the result of measurement then no problem arises.
The coefficients are the result of measurements. The NA is the unmeasured
case. Measured or not, the equation is impossible unless you treat NA as a
variable. If you do that then in this case, NA = -1/2. The problem that's
arising is that you're claiming NA is NOT a variable. You're claiming that
the NA doesn't even exist. That makes the equation
0_AB = 1/2_A
which is obviously mathematically incorrect.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that according to QM, neither A nor B separately have
> any
> > > > definite state until either A or B is measured, but the system AB is
> > known
> > > > to have neutral spin, right?
> > >
> > > The problem is that it is an entangled state.
> >
> > I said that in long fashion. You didn't answer the question though.
>
> I thought I did but I will repeat it again. QM talks about the results of
> measurements.
... and only that.
> When we have an entangled spin state what it says is if one
> is found to have up spin when we measure it the other will be found to
have
> down spin when we measure it.
Now. Applying what we know...
If particle A is sent to Pluto and particle B remains on Earth, and before
measurement, nothing interacts with the particles at all after they are
entangled, then the following is logically true:
Before measurement, we cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of the
measurement on either A or B.
After measuring the state of A, we know with a near absolute certainty what
the measured outcome of B will be.
Since Pluto is more than 1 lightsecond away from earth, if the measurement
of B occurs 1 second after the meaurement of A (in the timescale of A's
FOR), then there is no possible way that the measurement of A had an effect
on the outcome of the measurement of B since information cannot propagate
faster than light.
Therefore, the state of B must have pre-existed the measurement of B's
state.
Therefore, the state of A must have pre-existed the measurement of A's
state.
Therefore, even though it is absolutely correct that we can say nothing of
the individual state of either A or B before measuring at least one of them,
it is not correct to assume that the property to be measured does not exist
until measurement. I.e. entangled states prove value definitiveness.
> It does not say anything about the spin when
> we do not measure it.
It does not need to. All is a matter of logical and mathematical deduction,
none of which can be contradicted by QM.
> You can assume it has such properties independent of
> measurement if you wish and what Aspect showed is that if you do then
> locality is violated.
Remember the question you evaded above? Now do you see the relevance?
> But there is nothing in QM that says we must assume
> it has properties when we are not measuring it. Indeed what QM tells us
via
> the Kochen Specker theorem is that if you wish to maintain it has
properties
> independent of measurement you must assume those properties depend on what
> we choose to measure - a position those that adhere to 'realism' are
> unlikely to want - but QM forces it onto us if we accept it has properties
> when we are not measuring it.
You seem to rely a lot on KS theorem. Question: has KS theorem been
physically proven yet? Has it been mathematically proven for x=4 & y=2?
That's literally the case we're talking about here. Another, somewhat off
topic, question: Are there cases of entangled states involving more than 2
particles? How many can be entangled together at once?
> >
> > > >
> > > > p6's conjecture is that once particle A is measured, then the state
of
> > > > particle B is known (EPR paradox).
> > >
> > > Only if you assume it has properties independent of measurement.
> > >
> > > > This leads to the conclusion that either
> > > > 1) the particles communicated at superluminal speed, or 2) the state
> of
> > > both
> > > > particles pre-existed measurement, right?
> > >
> > > No. It leads to the conclusion that if you wish to preserve locality
> you
> > > need to attack the reality bit of local reality and assume, for
example,
> > > that a measurement of particle A does not constitute an in principle
> > > measurement of particle B because it has no properties independent of
> > direct
> > > measurement.
> >
> > The result of ditching local reality is that in this example, it is
> > impossible to predict what the measured result of B will be,
>
> You logic is erroneous. If you believe it has no properties independent
of
> measurement then you can not say anything about it until you measure it.
I try not to waste energy on belief when logical and mathematical deduction
will suffice. Given a purely logical and mathematically accurate deduction,
what in my logic is erroneous?
I know that. Now please answer the question. Why is it considered impossible
to derive and test rules if you dismiss (or modify) the current concept of
locality?
Nice dodge. Poorly executed this time though...
I never assumed that you rejected locality. I merely used the notion of
locality to exclude any possible outside cake mix influences. Please answer
the question.
> >
> > > > If both particles are known to be 1/2
> > > > spin particles, and the sum of their spin is known to be 0, then how
> can
> > > it
> > > > be that their individual spin state properties do not exist?
> > >
> > > How can it be that they exist independent of direct measurment?
> >
> > Let me answer your question with a question. Does an electron always
have
> a
> > charge? Is a neutron always electrically neutral? Does a proton always
> have
> > a magnetic field? Is a photon always massless?
>
> I answer I do not know - all we can say is as far as we can tell they do -
> by which I mean every time we ever measure it it has those properties -
not
> that they have those properties independent of measurement.. Perhaps they
> emerge via primary state diffusion - see links I give later.
Given that QM cannot answer this question, all that is left is to use
inference to deduce the answer, correct?
Incorrect. If you invalidate locality, KS theorem is not proveable since
there would be potential outside influences on a quantum system affecting
the net result. KS theorem can only be proven iff the current concept of
locality is correct.
... OR unless you either re-define or dismiss locality. Every question I've
asked you about this, you've dodged. Please answer them.
> >
> > > > Let me put it another way.
> > > > Is there any way to prove that an unmeasured particle has no
> properties?
> > >
> > > The same way as you would prove it does.
> >
> > Logical analysis would conclude that the property must preceed the
> > measurement or violate causality.
>
> It does not violate casualty. In QM we can maintain measurements are the
> result of the interaction of a classical apparatus with a quantum state.
Whoa. Hold on there partner. That's definitely too far beyond my ability to
suspend my disbelief. Every measuring device in existance is a collection of
a collection of a collection ... ad nauseum of quantum objects. At the level
where the measurement interaction occurs, it's quantum state interacting
with quantum state. At present, QM cannot handle this, and yet, this is
reality. The logical analysis holds and the assumption you make violates
causality.
> This is at least as good an explanation as it has this property that the
> measurement tells us about. IMHO it is better because it may actually
tell
> up how it results - the best current guess is quantum state diffusion.
IMHO, it's better to say that the properties exist because:
a) it's logical
b) it's mathematical
c) it means the electrons that bind the molecules that comprise the cells of
my body will maintain their charge long enough to ensure that no important
parts of me suddenly reduce to a sub-atomic state. :-p
> Indeed a very interesting hypothesis is primary state diffusion which
> explains measurements as stochastic processes from fluctuations at about
the
> plank scale -
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9508021.
> What makes this hypothesis attractive, at least to me, is it is
> experimentally distinguishable from standard QM. IMHO a single experiment
> is worth more than a million years of philosophical debate.
>
> Bill
On this point, we most definitely agree.
R.
Ranando King
"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121317800.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snipped>
> That's why I think a logical solution is that the properties are store
> in the wave function which lets assume is more than a mathematical
> entity and exist in higher dimension that uses holographic
> representation. This means before measurements the electron
> don't have any properties as they are in pure ghostly states. Upon
> measurement the wave function bestows the properties back to the
> electrons. If this is not the case, how do the electrons know they
> are electrons and not santa claus.
>
> p6
>
p6, tell me this? What exactly is it that's binding together the amino acid
chains in the proteins of your body? Let me ask you another way. If the
electrons that comprise your existance, as well as that of the world around
you, are not maintaining their own properties, then how does anything hold
together?
R.
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:tuiBe.45504$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
> > news:42d52...@news.vic.com...
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:QiDAe.37877$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > Why is the concept of locality preferable over the concept of local
> > reality?
> >
> > We are not discussing what is preferable we are discussing if QM forces
> > spooky action at a distance onto us - it does not. But as an aside
> realise
> > if you wish to maintain value definteness then you must reject non
> > contextuality ie you must accept that properties depend on what you
choose
> > to measure.
>
> First, you evaded the question, and quite skillfully at that! Now please
> answer it.
Your question is like asking someone - when will you stop beating your wife.
For the question to be meaningful you need to first show they are beating
their wife. For your question - 'Why is the concept of locality preferable
over the concept of local reality' you need first to show that I claim
locality is preferable to local reality. First locality is contained in the
concept of local reality (being locality + realism) - so your question would
seem not to even make sense. However insofar as I can make sense of it I do
not say that locality may not be violated; my claim is that Bells inequality
is proved under the assumption of local realism (note the word realism
instead of reality - I presume you mean realism has the same meaning as
reality in this context - if not then you are engaging in context shifting).
What Aspects experiment showed is that bells inequality is violated and that
QM is correct - local realism does not hold. Most people, who do not think
clearly enough or do not understand the actual assumptions, assume this
implies locality is at fault and ignore the second assumption - realism
(which in this context, if you actually examine the theorem, means value
definiteness). However it may be at fault - ie no properties exist
independent of observation in which case locality is saved. So my claim is
not that locality may not be violated - my claim is that it need not be
violated. But to clarify my position futher I claim that rejecting realism
is preferable to rejecting locality. Why? While is this context realism is
defined in the theorem as value definiteness when one uses the term realism
one usually carries along other things as well - one of which is non
contextuality. What the Kochen-Specker theorem says is QM does not allow
you to have both.
> There's a point to be made depending on your answer. Second, the
> fact is that QM is a model strictly tied to measurements. It cannot state
in
> any which way, form, or fashion the nature of something unmeasured unless
> that something is the result of something measured, in which case, an
> inference can be made.
Sure. That is the precise reason value definiteness may not apply to QM.
Do we? We know that when we measure both simultaneously they will have net
zero spin. That is not the same as saying they have net zero spin - such is
carrying implicitly the baggage of value definteness.
> There are 2 particles, and the
> only spin, states available to these particles are +/- 1/2. The math
implies
> that there must be properties such that one particle has a +1/2 state and
> the other a -1/2 state so that the net result can remain 0.
That is not what the math of QM implies. It implies if you measure it one
will have spin 1/2 which the other will have spin -1/2 - nohting is said
about what happens when we do not measure it - other than its properties are
encoded in this abstract thing we call a quantum state that evolves in a
deterministic manner until observed. But even then it must be admitted that
the state itself may not even be real - it may be simply a calculational
device because it too can is subject to the same issues in measurement.
> Therefore by
> inference, the property of spin must exist for both particles. ? + ? !=
> spin. It has to be spin + spin. That's nothing more than math.
Not true - you are assuming value definiteness.
> Since science
> predicates itself on the math, how can you possibly even assert that the
> properties of the particles don't exist?
Easy - the predictions are what would be observed if we measure it - not
what it has if we do not measure it.
>
> > > That would be in direct violation of conservation rules if it
> > > was known at setup that the net spin of system AB was neutral.
> >
> > If you believe that object have no properties until they are measured
then
> > the conservation laws only hold for measurements.
>
> It's not a matter of belief. Save belief for religions. The existance of
the
> properties is a matter of logical deduction.
That simply is not true. It is impossible to say anything for sure until it
is measured.
Rest snipped until this basic point of logic is sorted out.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
>
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1121316621....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >
> > > > > My simply mind has trouble understanding how energy can remain
> > > > > conserved without assuming that particles I'm not measuring have
> > > > > properties (i.e. energy)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please teach me how it works?
> > > >
> > > > Simple - in order to check energy conservation you need to make
> > > > measurements. It is fundamental to the scientific method that we
can
> > never
> > > > say something is true - only that all the tests so far support it ie
> > what is
> > > > happening when we do not measure it is pure conjecture based on all
> > sorts of
> > > > hidden assumptions.
> > >
> > > Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
> > > energy conservation.
> >
> > Wrong - in non inertial FOR's for example energy is not conserved.
>
> To me your statement seems like lunacy, but feel free to elaborate.
See page 126 of Landau - Mechanics - Motion in a Non-Inertial Frame of
Reference. The lagrangian of a free particle in such a frame undergoing
translational motion is (equation 39.4) where a is the accleration of the
frame.
L = 1/2mv^2 - ma*r
Now from this the equations of motion m*dv/dt = -m*a or the derivative of
the particles velocity is the acceleration of the frame. This is pretty
obvious physically - but I am trying to be ultra careful. The kinetic
energy - 1/2 mv^2 - is not constant - hence energy is not conserved. Why is
this? Noether in 1915 showed (loosely) that to every symmetry in a systems
lagrangeian there corresponds a conserved quantity and the conserved
quantity (technically called the conserved Noether charge) associated with
symmetry in time was found to be what is called energy. Since this
discovery energy has been defined as the conserved Noether charge associated
with time symmetry. Thus energy is only conserved in systems where the
lagrangeian does not depend on time - and indeed in an accelerating FOR the
lagrangeian does depend on time (the a*r term is time independent only if a
is zero) so kinetic energy is not conserved. Indeed a fundamental property
of inertial frames is homogeneity in time - which implies lagrangians must
not depend on time ie energy is conserved. Thus energy conservation is
really a tautological statement saying we are dealing with inertial frames
which is what Newton first law says anyway. Thus conservation of energy is
really a statement without content. See
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
>
> > Noether
> > sorted all this out 90 years ago - energy conservation is simply an
> > expression of underlying symetries in the lagrangain.
>
> Yes, it is _equivalent_ (hint: not defined as).
I disagree. In modern times energy is defined at the conserved Noether
charge associated with time symetry of the lagrangeian.
>
> But you are drifting from what was put to you.
>
> You said:
> " In order to say B is affected by the measurement of A you need to
> assume at has properties that exist independent of measurement -
> measuring A is not the same as measuring B. If it only has properties
> when measured then there is nothing to effect non locally. "
>
> And I simply put to you:
> " By measuring the energy state of a local system you can deduce a
> priori and *without measurement* that at least 1 other system must
> *exist* with some *energy state* in order for the energy of the
> combined systems to remain conserved. "
Your logic escapes me. If we measure A we can not make an assumption about
B until we actually measure it unless you assume it has properties
interplant of measurement. To me that is simple logical from the very
definition of value definiteness ie value definiteness is that systems
posses properties indepednant of measurement - if it does not hold then
locally we can not say anything about it properties unless we measure it.
>
> And that obviously contradicts your statement with extreme prejudice,
> don't you think?
No.
Bill
>
>
> > Bill
>
Schoenfeld
That statement has so many flaws in it, it's hard to know where to
begin.
1. In the Newtonian regime, which is the context of your statement, a
gravitationally accelerating body may indeed have increasing *kinetic
energy* so long as it has decreasing *gravitational potential energy*
thus the net energy of that single body remains fully conserved.
2. A body can only be inertially accelerating if and only if a force
was being applied on to that body. By trivial consequence of Newtons
3rd law, a reactive force must therefore be applied on to a separate
body (local to it under the assumption of locality) and thus the energy
of that local system goes fully conserved.
3. In the relativistic regime, since a non-inertial frame is an
accelerating frame, and since inertial acceleration is physically
identical to gravitational acceleration (by the strong equivalence
principle), then the entireity of general relativity is destroyed if a
non-inertial frame does not fully conserve energy for reasons I hope I
need not disclose.
> Why is
> this?
Because you are considering the *kinetic energy* in a single degree of
freedom of a single body and confusing that kinetic energy as the net
energy of that body, and worse, the net energy of the system of bodies
influencing each other. That is profoundly wrong.
If Landau does indeed say that then it makes a mockery of that text.
Hey Bill, if I only look an arbitrary volume of a gas chamber, can I
say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong because the entropy in
that volume is not always increasing? It's wrong in the same way your
statement is.
> Noether in 1915 showed (loosely) that to every symmetry in a systems
> lagrangeian there corresponds a conserved quantity and the conserved
> quantity (technically called the conserved Noether charge) associated with
> symmetry in time was found to be what is called energy. Since this
> discovery energy has been defined as the conserved Noether charge associated
> with time symmetry.
That's right.
> Thus energy is only conserved in systems where the
> lagrangeian does not depend on time - and indeed in an accelerating FOR the
> lagrangeian does depend on time (the a*r term is time independent only if a
> is zero) so kinetic energy is not conserved.
You confuse the failure to DEFINE energy conservation without time
invariance as somehow meaning that energy can then go unconserved.
Again, profoundly wrong.
> Indeed a fundamental property
> of inertial frames is homogeneity in time - which implies lagrangians must
> not depend on time ie energy is conserved.
So now that you can DEFINE it that way, energy goes conserved?
This is why you shouldn't define it that way to begin with.
> Thus energy conservation is
> really a tautological statement saying we are dealing with inertial frames
> which is what Newton first law says anyway. Thus conservation of energy is
> really a statement without content. See
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
You have misunderstood energy consevation. Please read my comments
above.
> >
> > > Noether
> > > sorted all this out 90 years ago - energy conservation is simply an
> > > expression of underlying symetries in the lagrangain.
> >
> > Yes, it is _equivalent_ (hint: not defined as).
>
> I disagree. In modern times energy is defined at the conserved Noether
> charge associated with time symetry of the lagrangeian.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
> >
> > But you are drifting from what was put to you.
> >
> > You said:
> > " In order to say B is affected by the measurement of A you need to
> > assume at has properties that exist independent of measurement -
> > measuring A is not the same as measuring B. If it only has properties
> > when measured then there is nothing to effect non locally. "
> >
> > And I simply put to you:
> > " By measuring the energy state of a local system you can deduce a
> > priori and *without measurement* that at least 1 other system must
> > *exist* with some *energy state* in order for the energy of the
> > combined systems to remain conserved. "
>
> Your logic escapes me. If we measure A we can not make an assumption about
> B until we actually measure it unless you assume it has properties
> interplant of measurement. To me that is simple logical from the very
> definition of value definiteness ie value definiteness is that systems
> posses properties indepednant of measurement - if it does not hold then
> locally we can not say anything about it properties unless we measure it.
I'll make it as simple as possible.
If I detect a photon's momentum, by the conservation of momentum, I
know *without measurement* that at least one other body MUST EXIST WITH
MOMENTUM in order for the net momentum of the entire system to have
remained constant.
> >
> > And that obviously contradicts your statement with extreme prejudice,
> > don't you think?
>
> No.
Please read it properly.
> Bill
>
> >
> >
> > > Bill
> >
Bilge
>Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
>energy conservation.
Not general relativity.
>By measuring an energy state of a local system you can deduce _a
>priori_ and _without measurement_ that at least 1 other system _exists_
>with _real energy_ in order for the energy of the combined systems to
>remain conserved.
Oh, really? For a metric with an explicit time dependence, how
do you propose to do that?
Schoenfeld
Bilge wrote:
> Schoenfeld:
>
> >Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
> >energy conservation.
>
> Not general relativity.
That's questionable.
> >By measuring an energy state of a local system you can deduce _a
> >priori_ and _without measurement_ that at least 1 other system _exists_
> >with _real energy_ in order for the energy of the combined systems to
> >remain conserved.
>
> Oh, really? For a metric with an explicit time dependence, how
> do you propose to do that?
That energy goes conserved in Minkowski spacetime and that spacetime is
infinitessimally Minkowskian sufficiently indicates to me that energy
remains conserved in all of spacetime (the transitive property you
see). Enter your woes with lack of time-invariance symmetries and their
false consequences on energy conservation - it ain't my problem.
Bill Hobba
I was not discussing a gravitationally accelerating body - the energy of
such a system comes from both kinetic and potential terms - I was discussing
a free particle which precludes potential terms.
>
> 2. A body can only be inertially accelerating if and only if a force
> was being applied on to that body. By trivial consequence of Newtons
> 3rd law, a reactive force must therefore be applied on to a separate
> body (local to it under the assumption of locality) and thus the energy
> of that local system goes fully conserved.
Newton 3rd law says if body A exerts a force on body B then body B exerts an
equal and opposite force on body A - it does not say anything about forces
not caused by another particle. Or another form is to every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction. In this context action is short for
interaction - in the example I gave there is no interaction.
>
> 3. In the relativistic regime, since a non-inertial frame is an
> accelerating frame, and since inertial acceleration is physically
> identical to gravitational acceleration (by the strong equivalence
> principle),
Please include the caveat - locally. The pseudo forces of rotation for
example are distinguishable from gravity - the 'tidal forces' in such a
frame go in the wrong direction and are immediate distinguishable from
gravitation.
> then the entireity of general relativity is destroyed if a
> non-inertial frame does not fully conserve energy for reasons I hope I
> need not disclose.
You are confused about what the EEP says.
>
> > Why is
> > this?
>
> Because you are considering the *kinetic energy* in a single degree of
> freedom of a single body and confusing that kinetic energy as the net
> energy of that body, and worse, the net energy of the system of bodies
> influencing each other. That is profoundly wrong.
Energy is defined as (part deriv L/part deriv v)*v - L - which gives as
usual for the above lagrangain a energy of 1/2 mv^2 - which is not
conserved.
>
> If Landau does indeed say that then it makes a mockery of that text.
>
IMHO it means you do not understand some pretty fundamental stuff and I
suspect you could benefit from studying that classic text.
>
> Hey Bill, if I only look an arbitrary volume of a gas chamber, can I
> say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong because the entropy in
> that volume is not always increasing? It's wrong in the same way your
> statement is.
Problems in thermodynamic always implicit assume an inertial frame unless
otherwise stated. I can not recall a single text that ever relaxes this
condiiton - but hey thermodynamics is not really my bag.
>
> > Noether in 1915 showed (loosely) that to every symmetry in a systems
> > lagrangeian there corresponds a conserved quantity and the conserved
> > quantity (technically called the conserved Noether charge) associated
with
> > symmetry in time was found to be what is called energy. Since this
> > discovery energy has been defined as the conserved Noether charge
associated
> > with time symmetry.
>
> That's right.
Ok - we have something to build on.
>
> > Thus energy is only conserved in systems where the
> > lagrangeian does not depend on time - and indeed in an accelerating FOR
the
> > lagrangeian does depend on time (the a*r term is time independent only
if a
> > is zero) so kinetic energy is not conserved.
>
> You confuse the failure to DEFINE energy conservation without time
> invariance as somehow meaning that energy can then go unconserved.
> Again, profoundly wrong.
You have 2 choices - either you take the definition from what it is in
inertial frames in which case it is not conserved or you say since it does
not have the required symmetry then we can not define a conserved quantity.
Either way energy is not conserved.
>
> > Indeed a fundamental property
> > of inertial frames is homogeneity in time - which implies lagrangians
must
> > not depend on time ie energy is conserved.
>
> So now that you can DEFINE it that way, energy goes conserved?
>
> This is why you shouldn't define it that way to begin with.
I am not the one that defined it that way - modern physics does. Besides
you seem to be contradicting what you said previously where you agreed with
what I said about Noether charge.
>
> > Thus energy conservation is
> > really a tautological statement saying we are dealing with inertial
frames
> > which is what Newton first law says anyway. Thus conservation of energy
is
> > really a statement without content. See
> > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
>
> You have misunderstood energy consevation. Please read my comments
> above.
IMHO you are the one that is confused.
Bill
Tom Roberts
> Bilge wrote:
>>Schoenfeld:
>> >Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
>> >energy conservation.
>> Not general relativity.
>
> That's questionable.
No, it is not. It is quite clear: in GR, the local conservation of
energy is a THEOREM, not an "underpinning" (it's a consequence of the
field equation, which _is_ an "underpinning" of GR). And in general
there is no global conservation of energy at all -- only manifolds that
happen to be equipped with a timelike Killing vector have it; the world
we inhabit quite clearly has no such Killing vector.
Need I point out that something that is present only in certain
highly-special cases cannot possibly be an "underpinning" of GR?
> That energy goes conserved in Minkowski spacetime and that spacetime is
> infinitessimally Minkowskian sufficiently indicates to me that energy
> remains conserved in all of spacetime (the transitive property you
> see).
You are naive, and need to study diffrential geometry to learn the error
in this. Energy is conserved in Minkowski spacetime because it HAS a
timelike Killing vector. So yes, in a small region of any manifold
energy is APPROXIMATELY conserved (because in such a region the metric
is APPROXIMATELY Minkowskian[#]) -- this is one aspect of Newtonian
mechanics being APPROXIMATELY correct in small regions. But in general
this cannot be extended to large regions (or the entire manifold),
because the integrability condition of the equation you need to
integrate is that the Riemann curvature tensor vanish -- i.e. your guess
only holds in GLOBALLY FLAT manifolds. That's not very useful.
Intimately related analogy: Your "logic" would imply that
one could extend Cartesian coordinates to cover the surface
of a sphere, because one can use them in an infinitesimal
region of that surface. It is clearly not possible to do so.
This is why mathematicians proceed using theorems and proofs,
not merely guesses like yours. And math most definitely is
an "underpinning" of GR (and all of theoretical physics).
[#] the accuracy of this approximation depends on both the
size of the region involved and the curvature of the manifold
in that region.
> Enter your woes with lack of time-invariance symmetries and their
> false consequences on energy conservation - it ain't my problem.
It's your ERROR, not "problem".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
I goofed - the above should be 1/2 mv^2 + ma*r for energy - which of course
in general is not constant - although it is interesting to note in the case
of 'a' being constant it is - the EEP at work classically I suspect.
Thanks
Bill
Schoenfeld
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Bilge wrote:
> >>Schoenfeld:
> >> >Underpinning all of classical and quantum physics is the notion of
> >> >energy conservation.
> >> Not general relativity.
> >
> > That's questionable.
>
> No, it is not. It is quite clear: in GR, the local conservation of
> energy is a THEOREM, not an "underpinning" (it's a consequence of the
> field equation, which _is_ an "underpinning" of GR). And in general
> there is no global conservation of energy at all -- only manifolds that
> happen to be equipped with a timelike Killing vector have it; the world
> we inhabit quite clearly has no such Killing vector.
>
> Need I point out that something that is present only in certain
> highly-special cases cannot possibly be an "underpinning" of GR?
Energy conservation is a fundamental and empirical TRUTH underlying all
of nature above planck time.
>
> > That energy goes conserved in Minkowski spacetime and that spacetime is
> > infinitessimally Minkowskian sufficiently indicates to me that energy
> > remains conserved in all of spacetime (the transitive property you
> > see).
>
> You are naive, and need to study diffrential geometry to learn the error
> in this. Energy is conserved in Minkowski spacetime because it HAS a
> timelike Killing vector. So yes, in a small region of any manifold
> energy is APPROXIMATELY conserved (because in such a region the metric
> is APPROXIMATELY Minkowskian[#]) -- this is one aspect of Newtonian
> mechanics being APPROXIMATELY correct in small regions. But in general
> this cannot be extended to large regions (or the entire manifold),
> because the integrability condition of the equation you need to
> integrate is that the Riemann curvature tensor vanish -- i.e. your guess
> only holds in GLOBALLY FLAT manifolds. That's not very useful.
A one line disproof of your statement:
"Hence gravitational waves and the energy they carry".
> Intimately related analogy: Your "logic" would imply that
> one could extend Cartesian coordinates to cover the surface
> of a sphere, because one can use them in an infinitesimal
> region of that surface. It is clearly not possible to do so.
> This is why mathematicians proceed using theorems and proofs,
> not merely guesses like yours. And math most definitely is
> an "underpinning" of GR (and all of theoretical physics).
A one line disproof of your statement:
"All Riemannian manifolds are isometrically embeddable within a
Euclidean space".
> [#] the accuracy of this approximation depends on both the
> size of the region involved and the curvature of the manifold
> in that region.
>
>
> > Enter your woes with lack of time-invariance symmetries and their
> > false consequences on energy conservation - it ain't my problem.
>
> It's your ERROR, not "problem".
You are confusing the inability to derive global energy conservation
with an explicit definition (not necessarily the only one mind you) as
meaning that energy can then go unconserved. But for me, that energy
can be infinitessimally conserved indicates that energy can thus be
globally conserved - it's as simple as that and the rest are mere
details re gravitational waves.
Such difficulties arose in the classical framework until they invented
the notion of gravitational potential energy, which is of course an
energy intrinsic to the system of bodies not the local body itself.
THE ENERGY OF A CLOSED SYSTEM IS A CONSTANT OVER ALL OF TIME
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
[snip]
Here's a simple proof of energy conservation in GR exploiting the
obvious fact that interactions *are always* local and thus must take
place over an infinitessimal volume of spacetime (a flat volume which
conserves energy).
1. A volume of spacetime having an infinitessimal radius dr is a flat
spacetime (Minkowskian).
2. Energy remains conserved in Minkowski spacetime.
3. Over an infinitessimal time period dt, a body in spacetime can only
influence another body within c.dt distance.
4. c . dt = dr (trivially true by infinitessimal arithmetic).
5. The interactions of all bodies are the sum of their infinitessimal
interactions which by consequence of (4) means that every interaction
conserves energy.
QED
Tom Roberts
> Energy conservation is a fundamental and empirical TRUTH underlying all
> of nature above planck time.
What God whispered in your ear and told you that?
Except for locally, your statement is plain and simply not true in
modern physics. Live with it. LEARN about it.
I repeat: in modern physics energy conservation is related to time
translation invariance, and any system without the latter does not have
the former. Period. In some/many systems useful approximations may exist
-- but as a statement of principle your claim is false. <shrug>
>>Energy is conserved in Minkowski spacetime because it HAS a
>>timelike Killing vector. So yes, in a small region of any manifold
>>energy is APPROXIMATELY conserved (because in such a region the metric
>>is APPROXIMATELY Minkowskian[#]) -- this is one aspect of Newtonian
>>mechanics being APPROXIMATELY correct in small regions. But in general
>>this cannot be extended to large regions (or the entire manifold),
>>because the integrability condition of the equation you need to
>>integrate is that the Riemann curvature tensor vanish -- i.e. your guess
>>only holds in GLOBALLY FLAT manifolds. That's not very useful.
>
> A one line disproof of your statement:
> "Hence gravitational waves and the energy they carry".
That's unrelated to my statement. This is not about gravitational waves,
this is about the impossibility of performing certain integrations in
general curved manifolds.
It is well known (except apparently by you) that in GR there is in
general no such thing as global energy conservation. Certain manifolds
can have it exactly, and certain others can have it approximately, but
in general global conservation of energy simply does not hold (and
cannot even be defined). <shrug>
>> Intimately related analogy: Your "logic" would imply that
>> one could extend Cartesian coordinates to cover the surface
>> of a sphere, because one can use them in an infinitesimal
>> region of that surface. It is clearly not possible to do so.
>> This is why mathematicians proceed using theorems and proofs,
>> not merely guesses like yours. And math most definitely is
>> an "underpinning" of GR (and all of theoretical physics).
>
> A one line disproof of your statement:
> "All Riemannian manifolds are isometrically embeddable within a
> Euclidean space".
That's unrelated to my statement. Certainly one can embed the surface of
a sphere S^2 in E^3 -- but still one cannot define Cartesian coordinates
that cover the sphere, even though they can be used in any infinitesimal
region of the surface.
Besides, GR uses SEMI-RIEMANNIAN geometry, and that theorem fails. The
smallest known space in which an arbitrary E^(1,3) manifold can be
isometrically embedded is E^(2,88). Not very useful.... And note those
TWO "time dimensions"....
> But for me, that energy
> can be infinitessimally conserved indicates that energy can thus be
> globally conserved
You are wrong. Your GUESSES are not mathematics. <shrug>
> THE ENERGY OF A CLOSED SYSTEM IS A CONSTANT OVER ALL OF TIME
Well, you just changed the subject -- until now we were discussing
general situations, not just closed systems.
In GR that may or may not be true. But those systems in which it is true
are SPECIAL -- this is not the general case at all. In general this is
false. <shrug>
Of course in the general case there is no such thing as
"closed system" either....
In GR, the requirements for this to hold are quite strict: the system
must be enclosable in a closed spatial 2-surface independent of time,
and outside that 2-surface the metric must be asymptotically flat. This
basically precludes one from "subdividing" a large universe into smaller
"closed systems" in any useful way for the purposes of energy conservation.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Here's a simple proof of energy conservation in GR exploiting the
> obvious fact that interactions *are always* local and thus must take
> place over an infinitessimal volume of spacetime (a flat volume which
> conserves energy).
> 5. The interactions of all bodies are the sum of their infinitessimal
> interactions which by consequence of (4) means that every interaction
> conserves energy.
But you cannot actually perform that "sum" in a general curved manifold.
Basically you have assumed that you can integrate the equation
corresponding to local energy conservation. You need to study such
differential equations -- you will learn that for partial differential
equations in multiple variables there are integrability conditions that
must be satisfied in order for there to be a solution. For this one the
integrability condition is that the manifold be globally flat (i.e.
Riemann = 0 everywhere).
Apparently you are so used to Euclidean geometry that you cannot fathom
that things can be different in curved manifolds. That's why
mathematicians proceed using theorems and proofs, rather than mere
GUESSES like you do. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
>
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Here's a simple proof of energy conservation in GR exploiting the
> obvious fact that interactions *are always* local and thus must take
> place over an infinitessimal volume of spacetime (a flat volume which
> conserves energy).
>
> 1. A volume of spacetime having an infinitessimal radius dr is a flat
> spacetime (Minkowskian).
Any physically realizable region is not exactly flat - it simply can be made
arbitrarily close to flat for many practical purposes by being made smaller
and smaller. Indeed regardless of small it is made the Riemann curvature
tensor never changes.
>
> 2. Energy remains conserved in Minkowski spacetime.
>
It does - but since generally the regions you are considering are not
exactly Minkowskian energy may not be conserved.
>
> 3. Over an infinitessimal time period dt, a body in spacetime can only
> influence another body within c.dt distance.
>
> 4. c . dt = dr (trivially true by infinitessimal arithmetic).
>
> 5. The interactions of all bodies are the sum of their infinitessimal
> interactions which by consequence of (4) means that every interaction
> conserves energy.
You have fallen for a standard calculus trap - one can not figure out
consequences in terms infinitesimal regions and claim they apply globally -
you need to show that the limit of the sum approaches what you claim it
does. This is one reason why mathematicians generally prefer arguments from
analysis rather than hand wavy ones from calculus - while epsilon delta type
arguments are a pain they are rigorous. If you could do what you propose
then you could show for example that all Riemann spaces must be Euclidian
because locally they are and the space is the sum of all such local regions
(loosely speaking). In the case of this example locally Euclidian means
that as the region is made smaller and smaller they can be made arbitrarily
close to Euclidian but never exactly Euclidian. And when they are summed up
(loosely speaking) the errors all again add up and the space is not
Euclidian - it does not matter how small the region is made it is never
Euclidian when it is added up. It is interesting to note that historically
the spur to the invention of analysis was similar absurdness that appeared
when Fourier series were haphazardly applied.
Bill
>
> QED
>
Schoenfeld
You only considered half of what I said and then proceeded to infer
things all wrong. What you need to consider is that causality only
takes place over an infinitessimal spacetime manifold which carries
perfect time translation symmetry and transitively energy conservation.
The reason it does this is because of locality. I don't need to
consider causality of larger manifolds because causality (i.e. energy
exchange) does not occur over larger distances.
For this simple reason I can easily extrapolate an infinitessimal
property of spacetime and apply it globally. I cannot do this for all
such properties like distance or time because they can DO occur in
larger manifolds and are not the trivial linear sum due to curvature.
Consider the other half of my argument and then proceed to find an
error, because have failed thus far.
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Schoenfeld
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Energy conservation is a fundamental and empirical TRUTH underlying all
> > of nature above planck time.
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you that?
>
> Except for locally, your statement is plain and simply not true in
> modern physics. Live with it. LEARN about it.
>
> I repeat: in modern physics energy conservation is related to time
> translation invariance, and any system without the latter does not have
> the former. Period. In some/many systems useful approximations may exist
Wow, what a blunder.
Tom's logic:
-------
let A = time translation symmetry
let B = energy conservation
Since A implies B then (NOT A) implies (NOT B).
-------
That logic is seriously flawed for reasons you should understand.
> -- but as a statement of principle your claim is false. <shrug>
>
>
> >>Energy is conserved in Minkowski spacetime because it HAS a
> >>timelike Killing vector. So yes, in a small region of any manifold
> >>energy is APPROXIMATELY conserved (because in such a region the metric
> >>is APPROXIMATELY Minkowskian[#]) -- this is one aspect of Newtonian
> >>mechanics being APPROXIMATELY correct in small regions. But in general
> >>this cannot be extended to large regions (or the entire manifold),
> >>because the integrability condition of the equation you need to
> >>integrate is that the Riemann curvature tensor vanish -- i.e. your guess
> >>only holds in GLOBALLY FLAT manifolds. That's not very useful.
> >
> > A one line disproof of your statement:
> > "Hence gravitational waves and the energy they carry".
>
> That's unrelated to my statement. This is not about gravitational waves,
> this is about the impossibility of performing certain integrations in
> general curved manifolds.
>
> It is well known (except apparently by you) that in GR there is in
> general no such thing as global energy conservation.
No, it is not "well known" that energy goes unconserved in GR. What is
well known is that there is no time translation symmetry in curved
spacetime.
hint:
That A implies B does NOT mean that (NOT A) implies (NOT B).
If you believe in reason then you'll believe in that.
> Certain manifolds
> can have it exactly, and certain others can have it approximately, but
> in general global conservation of energy simply does not hold (and
> cannot even be defined). <shrug>
>
>
> >> Intimately related analogy: Your "logic" would imply that
> >> one could extend Cartesian coordinates to cover the surface
> >> of a sphere, because one can use them in an infinitesimal
> >> region of that surface. It is clearly not possible to do so.
> >> This is why mathematicians proceed using theorems and proofs,
> >> not merely guesses like yours. And math most definitely is
> >> an "underpinning" of GR (and all of theoretical physics).
> >
> > A one line disproof of your statement:
> > "All Riemannian manifolds are isometrically embeddable within a
> > Euclidean space".
>
> That's unrelated to my statement. Certainly one can embed the surface of
> a sphere S^2 in E^3 -- but still one cannot define Cartesian coordinates
> that cover the sphere, even though they can be used in any infinitesimal
> region of the surface.
One can find a trivial injection.
> Besides, GR uses SEMI-RIEMANNIAN geometry, and that theorem fails. The
> smallest known space in which an arbitrary E^(1,3) manifold can be
> isometrically embedded is E^(2,88). Not very useful.... And note those
> TWO "time dimensions"....
We weren't talking about pseudo-riemannian manifolds, we were talknig
about a the surface of a sphere which is Riemannian.
>
> > But for me, that energy
> > can be infinitessimally conserved indicates that energy can thus be
> > globally conserved
>
> You are wrong. Your GUESSES are not mathematics. <shrug>
I am wrong only if in between the cause and effect there exists
spacetime and this cannot happen because it violates locality. Because
of this, cause-and-effect is constrained to a perfectly flat and time
symmetrical manifold which conserves all energy. One needs *NOT*
consider other types of manifolds since causality does not occur in
them due to locality.
>
> > THE ENERGY OF A CLOSED SYSTEM IS A CONSTANT OVER ALL OF TIME
>
> Well, you just changed the subject -- until now we were discussing
> general situations, not just closed systems.
No, that is the only context which energy conservation can be discussed
in. Even in the classical regime, a gravitationally falling body has
decreasing potential energy, but this energy is NOT intrinisc to that
local system but a property of the global system.
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121597585....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Here's a simple proof of energy conservation in GR exploiting the
> > obvious fact that interactions *are always* local and thus must take
> > place over an infinitessimal volume of spacetime (a flat volume which
> > conserves energy).
> >
> > 1. A volume of spacetime having an infinitessimal radius dr is a flat
> > spacetime (Minkowskian).
>
> Any physically realizable region is not exactly flat - it simply can be made
> arbitrarily close to flat for many practical purposes by being made smaller
> and smaller. Indeed regardless of small it is made the Riemann curvature
> tensor never changes.
When you say "physically realizable" you are implying that somehow an
infinitessimal volume of spacetime is impossible. You may be right in
the quantum world, but we are discussing the strict context of GR. In
GR an infinitessmial volume is a very real object worthy of
consideration.
The object I am describing is a perfectly flat and infinitessimal
submanifold of spacetime with radius (c . dt) having volume (4/3 pi
c^3 dt^3).
> >
> > 2. Energy remains conserved in Minkowski spacetime.
> >
>
> It does - but since generally the regions you are considering are not
> exactly Minkowskian energy may not be conserved.
Infinitessimal submanifolds are indeed Euclidean.
> >
> > 3. Over an infinitessimal time period dt, a body in spacetime can only
> > influence another body within c.dt distance.
> >
> > 4. c . dt = dr (trivially true by infinitessimal arithmetic).
> >
> > 5. The interactions of all bodies are the sum of their infinitessimal
> > interactions which by consequence of (4) means that every interaction
> > conserves energy.
>
> You have fallen for a standard calculus trap - one can not figure out
> consequences in terms infinitesimal regions and claim they apply globally -
> you need to show that the limit of the sum approaches what you claim it
> does. This is one reason why mathematicians generally prefer arguments from
> analysis rather than hand wavy ones from calculus - while epsilon delta type
> arguments are a pain they are rigorous. If you could do what you propose
> then you could show for example that all Riemann spaces must be Euclidian
> because locally they are and the space is the sum of all such local regions
> (loosely speaking). In the case of this example locally Euclidian means
> that as the region is made smaller and smaller they can be made arbitrarily
> close to Euclidian but never exactly Euclidian. And when they are summed up
> (loosely speaking) the errors all again add up and the space is not
> Euclidian - it does not matter how small the region is made it is never
> Euclidian when it is added up. It is interesting to note that historically
> the spur to the invention of analysis was similar absurdness that appeared
> when Fourier series were haphazardly applied.
I understand why you think I've fallen into this trap, but I'm afraid
that you did not understand the other half of my argument.
Due to locality, causality is entirely constrained to infinitessimal
submanifolds of spacetime. As I've said above, such manifolds are
perfectly flat and conserve energy. You don't need to consider energy
exchanges (i.e causality) over a larger distances, distances which
carry intrinsic curvature, because it would mean that there exists
spacetime between the cause and effect and this clearly violates
causality.
REPEAT: Causality is always constrained to infinitessimal submanifolds
of spacetime which are perfectly flat.
This is why the linear sum works, as naive as it works. The
contribution to energy exchanges over distances larger than
infinitessimal dr is 0, and only such distances can carry curvature -
so we get away with taking the linear sum. Easy.
Now I am NOT saying that one cannot simply extrapolate an
infinitessimal property of spacetime and naively apply it globally as
you *think* I've done. For example, I can't say that because spacetime
is infinitessimally flat that spacetime must then globally flat. The
reason it fails here is because *distance* is not an EXCLUSIVE property
of the infinitessimal submanifold. *Distance* is ALSO property of the
manifold in general (hence the metric).
The difference is that causality is an *EXCLUSIVE* property of
infintitessimally flat and time symmetrical submanifolds and which by
trivial consequence conserve energy globally. Thank you very much.
> Bill
>
> >
> > QED
> >
Ranando King
If you'll kindly excuse the fact that I tend to mis-word things from time to
time, the question above should read "Why is the concept of locality
preferable over the concept of local realism. You've stated on many an
occasion that you accept the locality of local reality but prefer to
dispense with the realism portion. My question is why?
> However insofar as I can make sense of it I do
> not say that locality may not be violated; my claim is that Bells
inequality
> is proved under the assumption of local realism (note the word realism
> instead of reality - I presume you mean realism has the same meaning as
> reality in this context - if not then you are engaging in context
shifting).
> What Aspects experiment showed is that bells inequality is violated and
that
> QM is correct - local realism does not hold.
Aspect's experiment, while deemed conclusive, left much to be desired in
terms of timing and detector efficiency. Statistically speaking, 5% detector
efficiency would not produce a significant sampling of the emissions from
the source. Those 2 issues have yet to be overcome simultaneously in any
experiment. IMHO there is a 3rd issue in the experiment. The entangled
photons had to travel through substance (atmosphere in this case) before
reaching the detector. Since any electron encountered along the way will
absorb the photon, any photon re-emitted by the absorbing electron will not
have preserved its entanglement with the photon heading toward the opposing
detector. As such, the photons detected were not necessarily the same as the
photons emitted. This issue was not raised by any scientist for some reason.
This test needs to be re-executed in a vacuum.
> Most people, who do not think
> clearly enough or do not understand the actual assumptions, assume this
> implies locality is at fault and ignore the second assumption - realism
> (which in this context, if you actually examine the theorem, means value
> definiteness). However it may be at fault - ie no properties exist
> independent of observation in which case locality is saved. So my claim
is
> not that locality may not be violated - my claim is that it need not be
> violated. But to clarify my position futher I claim that rejecting
realism
> is preferable to rejecting locality. Why? While is this context realism
is
> defined in the theorem as value definiteness when one uses the term
realism
> one usually carries along other things as well - one of which is non
> contextuality. What the Kochen-Specker theorem says is QM does not allow
> you to have both.
Actually, there are 3 issues to consider:
Parameter independance - the choice of what to measure on A will not affect
the measurement of B
Outcome independance - the probability of an outcome for B is independant of
the outcome of A
Value definiteness - the measurement of A does not precipitate the property
being measured.
If Aspect's experiment(and other EPR-type experiments) and Kochen-Specker
are correct, then only one of these 3 need be dismissed. The first two are
the ideas that comprise what we deem as locality. We cannot dismiss
parameter independance without accepting that the universe is conscious, and
that this consciousness controls reality. Too ...er ...strange. That just
leaves the last 2. You've opted to dismiss value definiteness in favor of
keeping locality in tact.
IMHO, it seems more likely that outcome independance is at fault. In an
entangled case, where the net spin, or in the case of Aspect's experiment,
polarization angle is known to be a certain value, then for the particles
involved in that system having the known value, the probability of an
outcome on one of the particles is highly dependant on the outcome of the
remaining particles. As such, if the values of all individual particles are
unknown, then nothing can be said about each individual particle. I have not
yet thought through the implications of KS on this issue. Any ideas?
> > There's a point to be made depending on your answer. Second, the
> > fact is that QM is a model strictly tied to measurements. It cannot
state
> in
> > any which way, form, or fashion the nature of something unmeasured
unless
> > that something is the result of something measured, in which case, an
> > inference can be made.
>
> Sure. That is the precise reason value definiteness may not apply to QM.
It's also the precise reason outcome independance may not apply to QM. There
is a logical problem with dismissing value definiteness. The monitor I'm
looking at while typing this has a power cord that I cannot currently see
because of the monitor's position. Sure, it's a macroscopic object large
enough to not experience quantum effects. However, it is composed of a
myriad of quantum systems, none of which I can verify exist right this
second. If you're right, since no one is making measurements of that cord
right now, it's quantum structure should have no properties. If that's true,
then how is it that electricity is being delivered to the monitor I'm
looking at? The same argument used on the CRT inside the monitor works even
better. Since no one is measuring the electrons being emitted by the cathode
in my monitor, it's EM properties might not exist. Yet my display looks as
beautiful as ever. This is only possible if the properties of the electrons
being fired exist all the way from the cathode to the screen. Do you wish to
assert that the electrons are being measured somehow?
<snipped>
Like you said, we can discuss the rest later.
The math of QM implies nothing. It's purely a calculational device designed
to determine the outcome of measurements. However, to say that those
measurements constitute reality is surely a fallacy. The nature of particles
between measurements must be logically deduced from the measurements taken.
Without such deductions, many of the marvelous technical devices that have
been created in the past 50 years would not have been possible.
There is a curious possibility that I've begun to consider using the
assumption that *some* of the measured properties of particles do not exist
before measurement. Considering that the measuring device is itself a
quantum system, it could be possible that the quantum-to-quantum
interactions that occur during measurement actually expose emergent
properties that are properties of the newly formed system and not of the
particle being measured. It's just a thought...
R.
jollyro...@yahoo.com
QM's non-locality: This is from Wikipedia:
The results of Bell's inequality, and experimental verificiation,
support Moving Dimensions Theory:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=44
http://physicsmathforums.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality
Bell's theorem refers to a class of correlation inequalities that hold
under local realism but do not apply under quantum mechanics (QM). The
Theorem is named after John Bell, whose ground-breaking mid-1960's
papers examined both von Neumann's proof of the non-existence of hidden
variables (1932) and the EPR paradox (1935) in greater detail. Bell's
most famous paper is entitled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox
(1964).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality
Bell test experiments
Main article: Bell test experiments.
Bell's inequalities are tested by "coincidence counts" from a Bell test
experiment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. Pairs of
particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with
respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then
detected. The setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by
the experimenter.
Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly suggest that Bell's
inequality is violated. Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments
performed prior to 1986 is given in 4.5 of (Redhead, 1987). Of the
thirteen experiments listed, only two reached results contradictory to
quantum mechanics; moreover, according to the same source, when the
experiments were repeated, "the discrepancies with QM could not be
reproduced".
Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell testThe source S produces pairs of
"photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a
two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or b) can be set by the
experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and
coincidences of four types (++, --, +- and -+) counted by the
coincidence monitor.
Enlarge
Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell test
The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions.
Each photon encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or
b) can be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel
are detected and coincidences of four types (++, --, +- and -+) counted
by the coincidence monitor.
Nevertheless, the issue is not conclusively settled. According to
Shimony's 2004 Stanford Encyclopedia overview article
"Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored
Quantum Mechanics, but not decisively because of the 'detection
loopholes' or the 'communication loophole.' The latter has been nearly
decisively blocked by a recent experiment and there is a good prospect
for blocking the former."
After EPR, the scientific community had been left in the uncomfortable
position that QM appeared accurate but incomplete. In this view, local
hidden variables existed but were not described by QM (and thus QM must
be incomplete). However, Bell showed that seemingly "reasonable"
assumptions within EPR about reality led to a contradiction with the
predictions of quantum mechanics. The assumptions were that a) no
effect can propagate faster than the speed of light (this is the
requirement of locality); and b) that the likelihood of any permutation
of the hypothesized hidden variables occurring was between 0% and 100%.
Bell saw that this was not always the case when considering spin
polarization components with entangled particles at specific angles.
Subsequent experimental tests of Bell's Inequalities are consistent
with the predictions of QM. However, they are inconsistent with at
least one of the assumptions of local reality. Therefore, either a) or
b) is incorrect.
Bell considered a hypothetical setup in which two observers, now
commonly referred to as Alice and Bob, perform independent measurements
on a system S prepared in some fixed state. Moreover, on each trial,
Alice and Bob can choose between various detector settings; after
repeated trials Alice and Bob collect statistics on their measurements
and correlate the results. In one version of this setup, Alice can
choose between two detector settings to measure one of XA or YA, and
Bob can choose between detector settings to measure either XB or YB.
Each measurement has one of two possible outcomes +1, -1.
As an example, consider a composite system consisting of two electrons
prepared in a special state, one of which is sent to Alice and the
other one to Bob. Alice and Bob then each measure the spin of their
electron along one of two perpendicular axes.
There are two key assumptions in Bell's analysis: (1) each measurement
reveals an objective physical property of the system (2) a measurement
taken by one observer has no effect on the measurement taken by the
other.
In the version of the inequality due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and
Holt (called the CHSH form):
(1) \quad \mathbf{C}(X_A, X_B) + \mathbf{C}(X_A, Y_B) + \mathbf{C}(Y_A,
X_B) - \mathbf{C}(Y_A, Y_B)\leq 2,
where C denotes correlation.
Experimental tests of Bell inequalities support the failure of local
realism, and in particular, that some of unexpected correlations
suggested by the EPR thought experiment do in fact occur. However, by
the no-communication theorem, it is impossible for Alice to communicate
information to Bob (or vice versa) in violation of relativity.
Bill Hobba
>
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1121597585....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Here's a simple proof of energy conservation in GR exploiting the
> > > obvious fact that interactions *are always* local and thus must take
> > > place over an infinitessimal volume of spacetime (a flat volume which
> > > conserves energy).
> > >
> > > 1. A volume of spacetime having an infinitessimal radius dr is a flat
> > > spacetime (Minkowskian).
> >
> > Any physically realizable region is not exactly flat - it simply can be
made
> > arbitrarily close to flat for many practical purposes by being made
smaller
> > and smaller. Indeed regardless of small it is made the Riemann
curvature
> > tensor never changes.
>
> When you say "physically realizable" you are implying that somehow an
> infinitessimal volume of spacetime is impossible.
Let me see - a positive infinitesimal has the property that it is less than
any positive real number but greater than zero - I have not seen too many
lengths or time intervals with that property. They exist purely as an
abstract property of the hyperreals not physically realizable.
Bill
Bill Hobba
No problemo - and no criticism meant. However please do understand that
when discussing fine points where we need to be careful in our logic I will
latch onto such when I believe it is important in getting what I am trying
to say across. I am probably the worlds worst offender in misreading
stuff - some posts I have made recently after doing just that still make me
shudder.
> You've stated on many an
> occasion that you accept the locality of local reality but prefer to
> dispense with the realism portion. My question is why?
I hope what I said later explained it.
Possible outs in Aspects and similar experiments I leave to
experimentalists. The point is even if true it does not imply locality is
violated.
Having examined proofs of Bells inequality many times I am not sure of the
above. But regardless of if it is true it does not affect my position.
>
> If Aspect's experiment(and other EPR-type experiments) and Kochen-Specker
> are correct, then only one of these 3 need be dismissed.
>
The Kochen-Specker theorem introduces the idea of non contextuality which is
not used in the proof of bells inequality. One can maintain value
definiteness - which is used in in proving bells inequality - but you need
to reject non contextuality for QM to hold.
What you are talking about are classical objects. Value definiteness
applies to those - no question. The issue is how does the classical world
emerge from the quantum world? That is the 64 million dollar question the
Copenhagen interpretation does not answer. It simply assumes such exists.
Now this is not a logical difficulty for the theory - merely an issue that
needs to be clarified. And more modern interpretations like consistent
histories has done just that using the idea of quantum state diffusion and
decoherence.
> However, it is composed of a
> myriad of quantum systems, none of which I can verify exist right this
> second. If you're right, since no one is making measurements of that cord
> right now, it's quantum structure should have no properties. If that's
true,
> then how is it that electricity is being delivered to the monitor I'm
> looking at?
Because classical objects obey value definiteness - or rather no problems
arise if you assume it does like arise in QM where if you assume it you must
reject non contextuality. But that aside the observation of electricity
passing thought the monitor constitutes a measurement in terms of that
particular set up.
Not quite true - it implies you can not have both value definiteness and non
contextuality.
> However, to say that those
> measurements constitute reality is surely a fallacy. The nature of
particles
> between measurements must be logically deduced from the measurements
taken.
It must be admitted that there is no way to determine what something is
doing if we are not measuring it. We can say based on such and such
evidence it should be doing such and such but that means we assume it has
those properties when we are not measuring it which is the assumption of
value definiteness.
Thanks
Bill
Schoenfeld
Read Newton or Archimedes. Perhaps Hobba can tell us all then the
distance causality acts over?
I'll assume this corrected your several errors.
> >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > >
> > > > QED
> > > >
> >
Y.Porat
question:
do we realy know
what a single photon is ???!!!!
and how it can be defined unequivocally??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Bill Hobba
Read Wiestrass or Robertson - or even simpler pick up a book on analysis and
bring your obviously out of date views into the 21st century or even the
19th century when this was all figured out.
> Perhaps Hobba can tell us all then the
> distance causality acts over?
It is a meaningless question - casualty is cause preceding effect. Causes
can occur at the same or different place as effects.
Bill
vic
nonsense, this hte same as saying "read the whole internet"
just to make up my point
shame on you, you lack arguments, then shut the fok up
>
> > Perhaps Hobba can tell us all then the
> > distance causality acts over?
>
> It is a meaningless question - casualty is cause preceding effect. Causes
> can occur at the same or different place as effects.
you are fokin meaningless, you fool
you mean effects occurs, not causes
what you detect are effects you moron, not causes
...ahaha AHAHA ahaha...
what a stoopid motherfoker you show us that you are, again
Schoenfeld
Your argument is simply wrong. You cannot deny that spacetime is
infinitessimally Minkowskian when it trivially is.
> > Perhaps Hobba can tell us all then the
> > distance causality acts over?
>
> It is a meaningless question - casualty is cause preceding effect. Causes
> can occur at the same or different place as effects.
You need to draw a Minkowski diagram and you need to understand that
each _point_ in the cone is an event - an instance of causality. Two
timelike separated events A and B does *not* mean that A directly
caused B as it would violate locality. A can only influence B as a
transitive effect of a set of intermediary events, events which trace
the timelike line between A and B. If locality were not a requirement
then one could simply say that two spacelike separated events C and D
influenced each other irrespective of anything else, and which ofcourse
destroys relativity.
The point I'm making is that since causality does not directly act over
larger and infinitessimal timelike distances, distances which carry
intrinsic curvature, then global energy conservation depends only on
the infinitessimal submanifolds of spacetime which always conserve
energy.
So if you think my argument is wrong then find something other than
"infinitessimal manifolds are physically unrealizable" because that is
false.
Schoenfeld
Schoenfeld wrote:
...
> The point I'm making is that since causality does not directly act over
> larger _THAN_ infinitessimal timelike distances, distances which carry
> intrinsic curvature, then global energy conservation depends only on
> the infinitessimal submanifolds of spacetime which always conserve
> energy.
>
> So if you think my argument is wrong then find something other than
> "infinitessimal manifolds are physically unrealizable" because that is
> false.
Corrected typo.
jollyro...@yahoo.com
either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most
working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time."
--Abner Shimony and John Clauser
Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time.
http://physicsmathforums.com
The underlying expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local
phenomena.
"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." --John Bell
Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal.
http://physicsmathforums.com
"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum
mechanics." --Erwin Schrodinger
"The discovery of the quantum of action shows us not only the natural
limitation of classical physics, but, by throwing a new light upon the
old philsophical problem of the objective existence of phenomena
indepedently of our observations, confronts us with a situation
hitherto unknown in natural science." --Niels Bohr
Ranando King
In that way, we are quite possibly very much alike.
It does, however, imply that value definiteness is not necessarily violated,
as you previously speculated by introducing Aspect's experiment into the
discussion.
Look to the analysis made by Abner Shimony on this issue. I don't have any
links to give you at the moment...
> >
> > If Aspect's experiment(and other EPR-type experiments) and
Kochen-Specker
> > are correct, then only one of these 3 need be dismissed.
> >
>
> The Kochen-Specker theorem introduces the idea of non contextuality which
is
> not used in the proof of bells inequality. One can maintain value
> definiteness - which is used in in proving bells inequality - but you need
> to reject non contextuality for QM to hold.
IMHO, Kochen-Specker theorem to operate under the assumption locality. Even
if I am wrong on this, there is still no problem with dismissing
non-contextuality (NC) if we can accept that in many cases, the property
being observed is an emergent property of the quantum system being measured
and the quantum system attached to the measuring device interacting to
perform the measurement. It's similar to saying that while a single photon
does not have mass, a system of 2 or more photons *can* have mass. The mass
of the system is an emergent property not posessed by any of the individual
photons.
> > The first two are
> > the ideas that comprise what we deem as locality. We cannot dismiss
> > parameter independance without accepting that the universe is conscious,
> and
> > that this consciousness controls reality. Too ...er ...strange. That
just
> > leaves the last 2. You've opted to dismiss value definiteness in favor
of
> > keeping locality in tact.
> >
> > IMHO, it seems more likely that outcome independance is at fault. In an
> > entangled case, where the net spin, or in the case of Aspect's
experiment,
> > polarization angle is known to be a certain value, then for the
particles
> > involved in that system having the known value, the probability of an
> > outcome on one of the particles is highly dependant on the outcome of
the
> > remaining particles. As such, if the values of all individual particles
> are
> > unknown, then nothing can be said about each individual particle. I have
> not
> > yet thought through the implications of KS on this issue. Any ideas?
No opinions on this?
You missed the point by breaking the paragraph there...
> > However, it is composed of a
> > myriad of quantum systems, none of which I can verify exist right this
> > second. If you're right, since no one is making measurements of that
cord
> > right now, it's quantum structure should have no properties. If that's
> true,
> > then how is it that electricity is being delivered to the monitor I'm
> > looking at?
>
> Because classical objects obey value definiteness - or rather no problems
> arise if you assume it does like arise in QM where if you assume it you
must
> reject non contextuality. But that aside the observation of electricity
> passing thought the monitor constitutes a measurement in terms of that
> particular set up.
You never actually "observe" electricity passing through the monitor. That's
a logical inference. All you actually observe is the light from the monitor
screen. From that, knowing the technical description of the monitor's
design, you can infer that electrons are being propelled into colored
phosphors on the screen's inner surface at a high rate of speed, guided by
EM deflection as they are emitted by a cathode that must be being charged by
an electric current presumably supplied by the afore mentioned power cable
that I'm not able to see at present. That's a lot of assuming! Not a single
one of these assumptions is in any which way, form, or fashion safe if I
cannot assume that non-observed quantum particles have properties. However,
if I assume value definiteness, then all of the above is a fact and not an
assumption.
Given this, you didn't really answer the question. I understand the
decoherence of classical objects. However, there must be a quantum limit to
this decoherence. If I accept the power cord as a classical structure, then
I cannot but assume that the electrons that comprise it have definite
properties. If I am not allowed to make that assumption, then even the
structured shape of the cord is called into question, let alone its ability
to carry an insulated electric current.
So the question is this: Since QM is supposed to describe the behavior of
quantum scale objects, at what scale does the classical description of the
object give way to the quantum description? Shouldn't the 2 descriptions
come to the same conclusion about the unobserved power cord? If you're
right, then QM says that the unobserved quantum structures of the cord
haven't the properties needed to carry electric current to the monitor...
and yet the monitor works.
<snipped for brevity>
That statement of yours holds true whether the object in question is
classical or quantum. Assuming that properties do not exist prior to
measurement has interesting consequences even on classical objects. If a
ball (a classical object) is thrown into deep space along a path that allows
it to cross areas of space where it cannot be observed by any definition of
observation used by scientists today, then at one of those points in space,
all of the quantum systems comprising the ball will lose their properties.
At the next point in space where the ball would be observed, there is a
probability now that the ball is no longer a ball!
R.
Bill Hobba
That is not what I am denying. I am questioning your kiddy level
understanding of what infinitesimal is.
Bill
vic
would you mind elaborate infinitisimal in a non kiddy level
understanding mode?
thank you very much
Bill Hobba
"vic" <je9...@tokyo.com> wrote in message
news:1121819726.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Would you mind posting coherently using your true name.
Thank you very much.
But purely for those that may be interested infinitesimal in modern
terminology when applied to physically realizable situations means a number
well below the accuracies being considered. We have first order
infinitesimals delta, while second order means accuracy of the order delta
squared, third order delta cubed and so on.
Bill
Schoenfeld
Hobba doesn't have the slightest clue on what he's talking about. He
doesn't understand infinitessimal numbers, he doesn't understand why
they are the cornerstone of all of calculus, he doesn't understand that
spacetime is infinitessmially Minkowskian and he fails to understand
that spacetime has a causal structure.
About the infinitessimals, Newton used them directly in his monumental
treatise "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematicathem" as did
Leibniz and both proceeded to derive the core of calculus with them
alone. Ironically, long before, Archimedes believed in them and used
them in various proofs (ironic because the archimides property of the
reals says pretty much that no infinitessimals exist).
The calculus they teach today is not the same one derived by Newton or
Leibniz, but rather one reformulated using the concept of a limit.
However, a whole branch of mathematics is dedicated to calculus using
infinitessimals - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis.
Note: I use double s in the spelling as this is the way my older texts
spell it.
Bill Hobba
I fully concede value definiteness may not be violated. I fully concede
locality may be violated. What I do not concede is that locality must be
violated.
Sure - happy to read them. But the issue is irrelevant to my claim - namely
locality need not be violated.
>
> > >
> > > If Aspect's experiment(and other EPR-type experiments) and
> Kochen-Specker
> > > are correct, then only one of these 3 need be dismissed.
> > >
> >
> > The Kochen-Specker theorem introduces the idea of non contextuality
which
> is
> > not used in the proof of bells inequality. One can maintain value
> > definiteness - which is used in in proving bells inequality - but you
need
> > to reject non contextuality for QM to hold.
>
> IMHO, Kochen-Specker theorem to operate under the assumption locality.
I suspect you are confused about the Kochen-Specker theorem. It has nothing
to do with locality. What it shows is that QM is not compatible with value
definteness and non contextuality - you can have one or the other or even
neither (my preferred option) but not both. The assumption of 'realism'
usually means both value definiteness and non contextuality - I seriously
doubt proponents of realism would want to reject either - a world where
properties magically change depending on what we decide to measure would
seem bizarre in the extreme - yet that is what you are forced to admit if
you believe in QM and value definiteness.
> Even
> if I am wrong on this, there is still no problem with dismissing
> non-contextuality (NC) if we can accept that in many cases, the property
> being observed is an emergent property of the quantum system being
measured
> and the quantum system attached to the measuring device interacting to
> perform the measurement. It's similar to saying that while a single photon
> does not have mass, a system of 2 or more photons *can* have mass. The
mass
> of the system is an emergent property not posessed by any of the
individual
> photons.
There is no problem with dismissing non contextuality - it is just that I
think most people would find a world where properties change depending on
what you decide to measure rather weird - but such is simply personnel
taste.
My opinion is that measurement is an interaction between the measuring
apparatus and the state of the system being measured - they do not posses
properties independent of measurement - it is the measurement process itself
that determines properties. In this way locality is saved.
I do not think so. The point you are trying to make is that we can infer
from the fact that elections are passing through the wire a wire must be
there - but passing electrons through a wire is obviously interacting with
it ie measuring if it is there or not.
You pass electrons through a wire - you are threfore measuring a property of
the wire - its conductance.
>
> Given this, you didn't really answer the question.
>
I think I did.
> I understand the
> decoherence of classical objects. However, there must be a quantum limit
to
> this decoherence. If I accept the power cord as a classical structure,
then
> I cannot but assume that the electrons that comprise it have definite
> properties. If I am not allowed to make that assumption, then even the
> structured shape of the cord is called into question, let alone its
ability
> to carry an insulated electric current.
You can however accept the classical nature of an electric current which
never, in considering classical phenomena like you are considering, displays
quantum behavior. Indeed that in the essence of classical behavior.
>
> So the question is this: Since QM is supposed to describe the behavior of
> quantum scale objects, at what scale does the classical description of the
> object give way to the quantum description?
I have already admitted that is the 64 million dollar question we do not
know the answer to. According to quantum decoherence we need to examine
each situation and only for simple cases have analysis been done - and even
there it is exceedingly difficult requiring complex computer models. But
the results are in accord with quantum decoherence ie some chaotic process
selects according to the rules of QM a particular state from a superposition
of them.
> Shouldn't the 2 descriptions
> come to the same conclusion about the unobserved power cord?
Not necessarily.
> If you're
> right, then QM says that the unobserved quantum structures of the cord
> haven't the properties needed to carry electric current to the monitor...
> and yet the monitor works.
However I say that passing a current through a wire is an observation.
Yes of course.
> Assuming that properties do not exist prior to
> measurement has interesting consequences even on classical objects. If a
> ball (a classical object) is thrown into deep space along a path that
allows
> it to cross areas of space where it cannot be observed by any definition
of
> observation used by scientists today, then at one of those points in
space,
> all of the quantum systems comprising the ball will lose their properties.
Not if they do not have any properties to loose.
> At the next point in space where the ball would be observed, there is a
> probability now that the ball is no longer a ball!
Classically that is never observed to happen.
Thanks
Bill
>
> R.
>
>
Ranando King
>
> "Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:42dd4...@news.vic.com...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:oNXCe.52262$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
> > > news:42dbd536$1...@news.vic.com...
> I fully concede value definiteness may not be violated. I fully concede
> locality may be violated. What I do not concede is that locality must be
> violated.
> > > > Actually, there are 3 issues to consider:
> > > > Parameter independance - the choice of what to measure on A will not
> > > affect
> > > > the measurement of B
> > > > Outcome independance - the probability of an outcome for B is
> > independant
> > > of
> > > > the outcome of A
> > > > Value definiteness - the measurement of A does not precipitate the
> > > property
> > > > being measured.
> > >
> > > Having examined proofs of Bells inequality many times I am not sure of
> the
> > > above. But regardless of if it is true it does not affect my
position.
> >
> > Look to the analysis made by Abner Shimony on this issue. I don't have
any
> > links to give you at the moment...
>
> Sure - happy to read them. But the issue is irrelevant to my claim -
namely
> locality need not be violated.
My point with this was that even I am a bit leery about dismissing locality
as a whole. However, my claim is that a re-definition of locality by
dismissal of one of its tenets would be preferable to dismissal of value
definiteness due to the logical consequences on classical objects.
> >
> > > >
> > > > If Aspect's experiment(and other EPR-type experiments) and
> > Kochen-Specker
> > > > are correct, then only one of these 3 need be dismissed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Kochen-Specker theorem introduces the idea of non contextuality
> which
> > is
> > > not used in the proof of bells inequality. One can maintain value
> > > definiteness - which is used in in proving bells inequality - but you
> need
> > > to reject non contextuality for QM to hold.
> >
> > IMHO, Kochen-Specker theorem to operate under the assumption locality.
>
> I suspect you are confused about the Kochen-Specker theorem. It has
nothing
> to do with locality. What it shows is that QM is not compatible with
value
> definteness and non contextuality - you can have one or the other or even
> neither (my preferred option) but not both. The assumption of 'realism'
> usually means both value definiteness and non contextuality - I seriously
> doubt proponents of realism would want to reject either - a world where
> properties magically change depending on what we decide to measure would
> seem bizarre in the extreme - yet that is what you are forced to admit if
> you believe in QM and value definiteness.
No magic required. It becomes a matter of emergent properties if you choose
to dismiss non-contextuality. The gist would be that measuring different
effects causes the quantum object and the measuring device to interact in
different ways. The difference in these interactions would cause different
emergent properties to arise. There should be a pattern to this, of course.
You'd have to accept something similar to dismiss value definiteness. The
difference is the consequence on classical objects.
<snipped>
> I do not think so. The point you are trying to make is that we can infer
> from the fact that elections are passing through the wire a wire must be
> there - but passing electrons through a wire is obviously interacting with
> it ie measuring if it is there or not.
Question: In the trunk of my car, there is a monitor with a blown picture
tube. If that monitor were on my desk, plugged in, and turned on, am I still
making a measurement of the power cord when there is no detectable activity
from the monitor? Remember that a monitor has internal circuitry that draws
power even if the CRT is non-functional. The point of the question is the
need to define what constitutes a measurement. Here, you state mere
interaction is enough. However, if that's true, then QM must be wrong since
everything is interacting with everything else because of their fields.
What's more is that if Virtual Particle theory is correct, then everything
is always interacting with something, even if that something only exists for
a fraction of a moment too short to measure. So mere interaction can't be
the definition if QM is to be held true.
<snipped>
> You pass electrons through a wire - you are threfore measuring a property
of
> the wire - its conductance.
Now, inserting the logic...
I'm measuring the property of conductance in the wire by passing electricity
through it. By definition, electricity is a stream of moving electrons, and
the wire is a nearly static array of atoms, usually copper. Since I am
causing each individual electron in the stream to interact with each copper
atom along the path of that atom, does it hold that I am measuring
properties of the quantum systems just listed? If so, what happens when I
turn off the power? Do I now assume that the power cord no longer has the
property of conductance? (Rhetorical.)
<snipped>
> You can however accept the classical nature of an electric current which
> never, in considering classical phenomena like you are considering,
displays
> quantum behavior. Indeed that in the essence of classical behavior.
>
> >
> > So the question is this: Since QM is supposed to describe the behavior
of
> > quantum scale objects, at what scale does the classical description of
the
> > object give way to the quantum description?
>
> I have already admitted that is the 64 million dollar question we do not
> know the answer to. According to quantum decoherence we need to examine
> each situation and only for simple cases have analysis been done - and
even
> there it is exceedingly difficult requiring complex computer models. But
> the results are in accord with quantum decoherence ie some chaotic process
> selects according to the rules of QM a particular state from a
superposition
> of them.
Have there been any studies made on this so-called "chaotic process"? It
seems that this "chaotic process" tends to have highly predictable outcomes.
Seeing as how the word chaotic implies non-predictability.... If you meant
chaotic in a mathematical sense, then that brings in the implications of a
univeral state machine, but that implies value definiteness....
<snipped>
> However I say that passing a current through a wire is an observation.
Can you give me a definition for observation that fits every known case of
decoherence? I've been looking hard for one with no success.
<snipped>
> > Assuming that properties do not exist prior to
> > measurement has interesting consequences even on classical objects. If a
> > ball (a classical object) is thrown into deep space along a path that
> allows
> > it to cross areas of space where it cannot be observed by any definition
> of
> > observation used by scientists today, then at one of those points in
> space,
> > all of the quantum systems comprising the ball will lose their
properties.
>
> Not if they do not have any properties to loose.
If you're right about interaction being a form of measurement, then the
quantum systems that comprise the ball are always measuring each other,
right? Ionic and covalent bonds are interactions.
> > At the next point in space where the ball would be observed, there is a
> > probability now that the ball is no longer a ball!
>
> Classically that is never observed to happen.
That's my point. There's nothing that ever even comes close to hinting
toward the consequences that would arise if value definiteness does not
apply. However, the fact that QM is a theory of measurements, requiring
measuring devices, but being incapable of treating the measuring device as
the collection of quantum systems that it is, does indeed hint toward the
idea of contextuality. Since the only side effects of contextuality are
limited to the realm of measurements, there are no side effects on classical
objects to consider.
R.
Bill Hobba
What do you mean by one of the tenants of locality? Locality has only one
tenant - that except at the same point causes precede effects by a finite
time interval. The out for local realism is in rejecting realism the effect
of observing particle A on particle B does not necessarily exist hence
locality is saved.
Thanks
Bill
Ranando King
<snipped>
> What do you mean by one of the tenants of locality? Locality has only one
> tenant - that except at the same point causes precede effects by a finite
> time interval. The out for local realism is in rejecting realism the
effect
> of observing particle A on particle B does not necessarily exist hence
> locality is saved.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
That's why I wanted you to read up about Abner Shimony's description of
locality. The one tenet you stated can be restated in a somewhat more
enlightening fashion. In short:
Parameter independance + Outcome independance = locality.
See previous posts for the definition of these 2 terms. Let your next reply
be to my previous post so we can finish that conversation as if you
understood what I was saying.
R.
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:DQBDe.53982$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> <snipped>
> > What do you mean by one of the tenants of locality? Locality has only
one
> > tenant - that except at the same point causes precede effects by a
finite
> > time interval. The out for local realism is in rejecting realism the
> effect
> > of observing particle A on particle B does not necessarily exist hence
> > locality is saved.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> That's why I wanted you to read up about Abner Shimony's description of
> locality. The one tenet you stated can be restated in a somewhat more
> enlightening fashion. In short:
>
> Parameter independance + Outcome independance = locality.
AFAICS the above has nothing to do with locality. Parameter independence +
Outcome independence can still hold and locality is violated and the
converse certainly does not hold - locality does not imply Parameter
independence + Outcome independence.
>
> See previous posts for the definition of these 2 terms. Let your next
reply
> be to my previous post so we can finish that conversation as if you
> understood what I was saying.
Before proceeding let us first agree on what locality is. If you believe
Parameter independence + Outcome independence = locality then you need to
show it not mention someone else's writings and expect me to search for it.
At least provide a link or cite a reference.
Thanks
Bill
>
> R.
>
>