Entanglement

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 3:20:39 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

Entanglement is a form of nonlocality.

LC

[agrays...@gmail.com]

OK, that's what I thought, but consider this. It's clear that information can't be transmitted due to entanglement or non locality. But aren't we entangled with the external world, yet receive information from it? TIA, AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Or look at it this way; if I am NOT entangled with the photons coming my way allowing me to SEE the world, and NOT entangled with the various pressure waves that enable me to hear and feel the world, what I am entangled with? TIA, AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

The classical or macroscopic world is in part at least related to how quantum states are entangled at different times with other states in the environment. This though is not a level of description that can tell you much about these specific interactions. The quantum world is in effect in a sort of random Zeno machine that continually reduces wave functions, and in effect it can be argued it does this to itself. Quantum phases are being continually mixed and re-entangled so as to generate a sort of quantum phase chaos. 

LC

[agrays...@gmail.com]

This sounds reasonable, but when I try to apply I run into big trouble. Suppose there's a free Nitrogen molecule coming my way, and when it strikes me I experience a breeze. Am I ever entangled with it prior to impact? IIUC, its wf spreads with time. Same for an assumed wave packet. Not sure which wf is appropriate to apply, That aside, but whichever, that's an initial form which spreads and it is most concentrated when initially observed. But where is the observer to set the initial condition? TIA, AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

The general question is this; how does one get an entangled system from two UN-entangled systems, each with its own WF? TIA, AG 

[agrays...@gmail.com]

I just don't see how we gets *spontaneous* entangled states from unentangled states. In the free Nitrogen molecule case described above, we don't seem to even have a well defined WF of a free Nitrogen molecule to use, to get entangled with any other system. This goes to the heart of decoherence theory. It might be a lot of handwaving BS without substance. TIA, AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

Entanglement of quantum states occur through an interaction of these states. Similarly decoherence occurs through an interactions. The quantum phase of an entanglement or superposition is transferred through interactions. To try to understand this requires some pretty serious work. Entanglements are described by quotient spaces of groups, symmetric spaces and are related to the universal bundle problem in differential geometry. These spaces are related to the symmetries of interactions. 

LC

[agrays...@gmail.com]

OK, but in the case of the free Nitrogen molecule, can you define the quantum state unambiguously in order to begin to think of how entanglement might occur with its environment? If the state is undefined, all which follows, fails. AG

[Bruno Marchal]

On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

As Everett already understood, non-locality is itself phenomenological. But the violation of Bell’s inequality makes any mono-universe theory highly non-local. It is my main motivation to be skeptical in any mono-universe theory.

Some, even in this list, believes that in the many universe theory there are still some trace of no-locality, but generally, they forget to use the key fact, explains by Everett, that observation are independent of the choice of the experimental set up. In particular, a singlet Bell’s type of state, involves really a multi-multiverse, somehow. Better not to take the idea of “universe” to much seriously, as in fine, those are local first person plural relative states, and they emerges already from elementary arithmetic, in a way enough precise to be compared with the facts. 

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

As Everett already understood, non-locality is itself phenomenological. But the violation of Bell’s inequality makes any mono-universe theory highly non-local. It is my main motivation to be skeptical in any mono-universe theory.

Some, even in this list, believes that in the many universe theory there are still some trace of no-locality, but generally, they forget to use the key fact, explains by Everett, that observation are independent of the choice of the experimental set up. In particular, a singlet Bell’s type of state, involves really a multi-multiverse, somehow. Better not to take the idea of “universe” to much seriously, as in fine, those are local first person plural relative states, and they emerges already from elementary arithmetic, in a way enough precise to be compared with the facts. 

Bruno

This sounds confused. There is noncontextuality in QM that states there is nothing in QM that determines how an apparatus is to be oriented. This is in ways thinking if the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, where its orientation is a choice of basis vector. QM is invariant under choice of basis vectors. The context of the experiment is then due to the classical or macroscopic structure of the observer or apparatus. 

LC 

[Bruce Kellett]

From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com>

Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context. As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

[Bruno Marchal]

On 9 Apr 2018, at 00:48, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

As Everett already understood, non-locality is itself phenomenological. But the violation of Bell’s inequality makes any mono-universe theory highly non-local. It is my main motivation to be skeptical in any mono-universe theory.

Some, even in this list, believes that in the many universe theory there are still some trace of no-locality, but generally, they forget to use the key fact, explains by Everett, that observation are independent of the choice of the experimental set up. In particular, a singlet Bell’s type of state, involves really a multi-multiverse, somehow. Better not to take the idea of “universe” to much seriously, as in fine, those are local first person plural relative states, and they emerges already from elementary arithmetic, in a way enough precise to be compared with the facts. 

Bruno

This sounds confused. There is noncontextuality in QM that states there is nothing in QM that determines how an apparatus is to be oriented.

OK.

This is in ways thinking if the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, where its orientation is a choice of basis vector. QM is invariant under choice of basis vectors. The context of the experiment is then due to the classical or macroscopic structure of the observer or apparatus. 

It seems you are saying the same thing as me.

But this does not entails any physical action at a distance, unless we postulate a physical collapse of the wave (as opposed to a local entanglement relative to the observer, which is local and which propagates only at the speed of light. Then when Alice (say) measures its particle, it only tells Alice in which partition of the multiverse she belongs, and where indeed Bob will find the corresponding results. EPR and Bell assumes a mono-universe to get the non locality.

Bruno

LC 

[Bruno Marchal]

? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive. Many others did too, and using an insulting tone will not help you to convince anyone. You were just interpreting the singlet state in some too much naive many-world theory. Everett has already been rather clear on all of this. O course, with computationalism it is still an open problem. 

Bruno

Bruce

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 00:48, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG

As Everett already understood, non-locality is itself phenomenological. But the violation of Bell’s inequality makes any mono-universe theory highly non-local. It is my main motivation to be skeptical in any mono-universe theory.

Some, even in this list, believes that in the many universe theory there are still some trace of no-locality, but generally, they forget to use the key fact, explains by Everett, that observation are independent of the choice of the experimental set up. In particular, a singlet Bell’s type of state, involves really a multi-multiverse, somehow. Better not to take the idea of “universe” to much seriously, as in fine, those are local first person plural relative states, and they emerges already from elementary arithmetic, in a way enough precise to be compared with the facts. 

Bruno

This sounds confused. There is noncontextuality in QM that states there is nothing in QM that determines how an apparatus is to be oriented.

OK.

This is in ways thinking if the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, where its orientation is a choice of basis vector. QM is invariant under choice of basis vectors. The context of the experiment is then due to the classical or macroscopic structure of the observer or apparatus. 

It seems you are saying the same thing as me.

But this does not entails any physical action at a distance, unless we postulate a physical collapse of the wave (as opposed to a local entanglement relative to the observer, which is local and which propagates only at the speed of light. Then when Alice (say) measures its particle, it only tells Alice in which partition of the multiverse she belongs, and where indeed Bob will find the corresponding results. EPR and Bell assumes a mono-universe to get the non locality.

Bruno

I don't have any serious objection with this. I though do not in thinking about these things invoke quantum interpretations if possible. If I do I often might appeal to a couple of them, usually MWI or Everett's and CI of Bohr, to illustrate two ways of thinking. There is also the Montevideo interpretation that takes off from Penrose's idea of gravitation and R-process. However, I don't particularly believe in any of them.

LC

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are, or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get, but once again he just said he already proved that was not true in yet another mysterious post nobody has ever seen.

> As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.

Yes, and yet Bruno claims to be a logician. Very odd.

 John K Clark  

[agrays...@gmail.com]

This seems like a simple Yes/No question. Am I missing something? AG

[smitra]

On 09-04-2018 03:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> From: LAWRENCE CROWELL <goldenfield...@gmail.com>

It's a simple dispute that boils down to whether or not you assume that
classical mechanics at the macro level has a fundamental role to play in
physics.

Saibal

[Lawrence Crowell]

It comes down to Immanuel Kant's phenomena vs the noumena. On the phenomenological level classical physics is clearly important. On the noumena level things are less clear. If I am right quantum information has aspects of chaotic dynamics where it becomes impossible to determine if qubits in a system are conserved. One can't physically track them; it is much the same as sensitive dependence on sensitive conditions in chaotic classical deterministic physics. However, just as chaos is deterministic so ultimately is the conservation of qubits. However, whether qubits are from a practical level conserved is a choice of what question you ask --- much like choosing a particular quantum interpretation. Classical physics as phenomena, sure. It is noumena? That may depend on what observation or question you ask of nature.

LC

[Bruno Marchal]

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

in yet another mysterious post nobody has ever seen.

> As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.

Yes,

Yes? Which dogmatic belief. You are the one who invoke his ontological commitment to stop reasoning (cf step 3).

You might try to explain this to Grayson, as he did not follow those discussions, and seems like many to ignore the metaphysical consequence of indexical computationalism. I doubt you will succeed to be franc, as you are the only person I met who have a problem at this stage. Step seven is more often criticised, because people, especially physicists tend to confuse a computation with a physical computation, like they confuse the notion of reality with the notion of physical reality, which is basically the Aristotelian theology/metaphysics.

and yet Bruno claims to be a logician. Very odd.

I have never claim anything like that. I did refer to my PhD thesis in mathematical logic, for obvious reason.

Bruno

 John K Clark  

[Bruno Marchal]

OK. The point was just that with Everett, there is no *physical* non-locality, just the separability (which is the term used by Bernard d’Espagnat, to indeed avoid the common misunderstanding here).

About Bohr, it is unclear, but in his reply to EPR (Einstein Podolski Rosen paper) he mentions that indeed, the collapse cannot be a physical process, and then get unclear about what quantum mechanics is all about.

There is also the Montevideo interpretation that takes off from Penrose's idea of gravitation and R-process. However, I don't particularly believe in any of them.

Me neither. It would be nice, though, as consciousness would be responsible for the curation of space (gravitation), but again, it is poorly convincing, especially after his misuse of Gödel’s theorem for defending a non-mechanist theory of consciousness.

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:32:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

in yet another mysterious post nobody has ever seen.

> As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.

Yes,

Yes? Which dogmatic belief. You are the one who invoke his ontological commitment to stop reasoning (cf step 3).

You might try to explain this to Grayson, as he did not follow those discussions, and seems like many to ignore the metaphysical consequence of indexical computationalism.

I have no clue what it is, to ignore or not. Also, in saying physics is a work in progress, I didn't necessarily mean that consciousness couldn't eventually be included in a Final Theory. So I am not an Aristotelian if that means necessarily believing in the primary nature of physical matter. For me, it's an open question. AG
 

[agrays...@gmail.com]

If this simple Yes/No question can't be answered, it seems to argue that entanglement with the environment is an illusion. AG

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Apr 2018, at 17:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:32:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

in yet another mysterious post nobody has ever seen.

> As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.

Yes,

Yes? Which dogmatic belief. You are the one who invoke his ontological commitment to stop reasoning (cf step 3).

You might try to explain this to Grayson, as he did not follow those discussions, and seems like many to ignore the metaphysical consequence of indexical computationalism.

I have no clue what it is, to ignore or not. Also, in saying physics is a work in progress, I didn't necessarily mean that consciousness couldn't eventually be included in a Final Theory. So I am not an Aristotelian if that means necessarily believing in the primary nature of physical matter. For me, it's an open question. AG

Good. Then all you need to study is the (mathematical, indeed arithmetical) notion of computations. Then you might understand a little theory of everything, which I prefer to call “theology” for diverse reason.

But I do not propose that theory. I extracted it in two ways. 

In one way, I start from the intuitive indexical understanding of mechanism: it means practically that you survive with your brain/body substituted by a (indeed physical) computer. It is the idea that the basic process of my brain, at some level of description, are computable, in the precise mathematical sense allowed by the Church-Turing Thesis.

In the second way, I show that incompleteness forces the sound universal machine to distinguish the Platonic definitions of how the One get Multiple when observing itself, basically truth (p), belief (Bp), know (Bp & p), Observe (Bp & ~Bf (f is for 0 = 1)), feels (Bp & ~Bf & p).

With Church thesis it is an easy exercise, indeed solved in all textbook of mathematical logic, to figure out that the proof of the arithmetical existential relation, of the type ExP(x, y, z) with P decidable, emulates all computable processes. That’s the sigma_1 formula.

Now all computations are emulated in Arithmetic, indeed in all Models of Arithmetic. 

But for the first person views, with rather simple thought experiences you can understand what happens, which is that we (we the universal numbers) cannot, below our substitution level, determine which computations our consciousness differentiates on). We are distributed in a vast (infinite) ocean of dreams, which follows from a set of reason of the type (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3). If you have enough faith and courage to believe this! 

Church thesis implies a very precise, and arithmetical, notion of universality, The mind body problem becomes an interesting body appearance problems, but the modal nuances imposed by incompleteness, and, amazingly enough completely axiomatised, at the propositional logical level (the two arithmetical completeness theorem of Solovay for the modal logic G and G*), we can test quickly the platonic definition of matter (intuitively understandable with the thought experience), by comparing the logic of the “observe” modality with quantum logic, and it fits.

If you don’t like Everett, that is bad news! This extends Everett on the whole (sigma_1) arithmetic. The physicists will still obeys to the laws of physics (Everett) but the sleepy mathematical dreamer he really is belongs to its won dream.

The Universal Dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all programs. It exemplifies the truth and provability of the sigma_1 sentences. It generates also many non halting computations, and we are determined by a relative statistics and renormalisation. With computationalism dreams have laws, dictated by computer science and/or Arithmetic.

Only a con man can claim that science has decided between Aristotle (reality is WYSIWYG) and Plato (Perhaps not).

And with computationalism and Everett, it becomes testable, and, thanks to QM (without collapse) we can’t say that we detect evidence for non computable or non “non computable recoverable by the measure on the limits of computations.  In arithmetic, the universal machines “lives” on the border of the true sigma_1 sentences. By looking at themselves they are already confronted to the non computable.

If the physical appears to much computable, that could make digital-mechanism in trouble, as mechanism implies the importance of diverses degrees of non computability, playing some role in physics (relative measures).

You might try to read a sum up easily accessible here:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 

I published more detailed versions. Before 2007 see my URL, after, see Academia.edu ReserachGates.

To bad the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of the antic Chinese, Indians and Greeks (and I guess other) which was more like Universe/Non-Universe, or one/multiple, or awaken/dream, etc.

Take your time. The platonist universal number are infinitely patient :)

Bruno

[Bruce Kellett]

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

So much the worse for mechanism. I imagine that you see yourself as living in a "world"; and that that world has a set of relatively consistent properties. Abolish that notion and life suddenly becomes very difficult indeed!

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Your authorities are terminally flawed, as I have repeatedly shown. If you can't recall the refutations of these silly papers, then look in the archives!

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:47:22 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

Oh, but it does -- NOT in the sense of being able to send messages, but in the sense of each subsystem being in instantaneous contact with the other. To avoid this unpleasant, enigmatic result, the description used is "influence". Gotta luv it. AG

[John Clark]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

It is easy to find them in the archive

​You've been telling me that for years but ​neither you nor me nor anybody else has managed to find that wonderful post of yours that explained everything.

 

​

 John K Clark​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.

 

> ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

That does not follow from any proof of “non-locality” in Everett Quantum Mechanics. But that is entailed indeed in QM + the assumption of a unique physical universe.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

So much the worse for mechanism.

You talk like if you knew that there is a world. Show me one evidence.

I imagine that you see yourself as living in a "world"; and that that world has a set of relatively consistent properties. Abolish that notion and life suddenly becomes very difficult indeed!

No, mechanism explain why we see ourself as living in a world, but without committing oneself ontologically.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Your authorities are terminally flawed, as I have repeatedly shown. If you can't recall the refutations of these silly papers, then look in the archives!

I answered them. Others too. If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to show the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact. You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it involves 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See more in the archive.

Bruno

Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

You are just lying. I can’t find a post on that, because there are thousand of them.

[Bruce Kellett]

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

That does not follow from any proof of “non-locality” in Everett Quantum Mechanics. But that is entailed indeed in QM + the assumption of a unique physical universe.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Everettian QM is identical to standard QM in every possible experiment/prediction. QM implies non-locality in any interpretation.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

So much the worse for mechanism.

You talk like if you knew that there is a world. Show me one evidence.

You talk of an "infinity of worlds". Surely that means that there is at least one?

I imagine that you see yourself as living in a "world"; and that that world has a set of relatively consistent properties. Abolish that notion and life suddenly becomes very difficult indeed!

No, mechanism explain why we see ourself as living in a world, but without committing oneself ontologically.

Oh, I see that now you admit that we live in a world. What does ontological commitment have to do with it? You are just obfuscating again.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Your authorities are terminally flawed, as I have repeatedly shown. If you can't recall the refutations of these silly papers, then look in the archives!

I answered them. Others too.

You may have typed some words in response to my clear refutations of their arguments, but you have by no means answered the criticisms. Your famed logic has failed you, once again.

If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to show the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact.

The fact is demonstrated by the experiments that test Bell inequalities on the singlet state.

You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it involves 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See more in the archive.

The singlet state involves only four possible combinations of experimental results -- each such combination can be identified with a separate universe. The infinity of universe you keep appealing to are nothing more than a figment of your imagination; they play no role in the understanding of the physical situation. It is mere obfuscation on your part.

Bruno, it is clear that you have no interest in actually understanding the implications of entanglement in quantum mechanics. We could go round these circles for ever, but you are not going to improve your understanding unless you actually engage with the arguments.

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

It's gratifying that someone understands entanglement. It means two separated subsystems are not really separated. Right? Anything else we need to know? AG
 

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:19:04 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

That does not follow from any proof of “non-locality” in Everett Quantum Mechanics. But that is entailed indeed in QM + the assumption of a unique physical universe.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Everettian QM is identical to standard QM in every possible experiment/prediction. QM implies non-locality in any interpretation.

Bruce

Everett MWI is none other than ordinary QM with projectors onto outcomes that are treated as the world of the observer. Since the projector is a diagonal set of units in the unit operator over the Hilbert space the idea is that the states observed "projected out" are only so in the frame or world of the observer. These other states however persist, and these other worlds are just the results of projector operators on the total state. In one sense this is really no different than Copenhagen interpretation use of projector operators. The only difference is the total unitarity of the quantum world is stated to exist because the projector is a fabrication of our observer frame. In CI and other collapse interpretations the projector is treated as not just a frame dependency but as a hard objective outcome.

Ultimately the problem is that since the projector operator is idempotent and has no inverse it is not a proper quantum mechanical operator. It is neither unitary or Hermitian. So quantum mechanics is completely silent on the meaning of the projector. The meaning of the projector operator is entirely fabricated by us. 

LC

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>

​>> ​

​

It is easy to find them in the archive

​

​>> ​

You've been telling me that for years but ​neither you nor me nor anybody else has managed to find that wonderful post of yours that explained everything.

 

​

​> ​

You are just lying. I can’t find a post on that, because there are thousand of them.

​What the hell? You just said "​

​

It is easy to find them in the archive

​"!​

 John K Clark

 

 

[agrays...@gmail.com]

So many big brains here, yet no one can answer an ostensibly simple question. Disclosure; it's not a high crime or misdemeanor to admit one doesn't know the answer. That would help. TIA, AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Oh, I should have written that entanglement can be described as two spatially separated subsystems that are not SEPARABLE. Now that make a lot of sense, except to Bruno, the accused deceiver and obfuscator, for whom the statement is not intelligible. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

[Brent Meeker]

Define "measurement".

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Isn't this one of the big unsolved problems in QM? How would you explain spontaneous entanglement? We think it occurs when we have an instrument to measure some observable, but there must be a more general process speculated to explain spontaneous entanglement. Don't ya think? AG

[Bruce Kellett]

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Consider a scattering interaction between two billiard balls.  If you know their initial momenta, and you know that momentum is conserved, then because of the entanglement, if you measure the momentum of one particle, you immediately know the momentum of the other, no matter how far away it is (provided there have been no intervening interactions). Entanglement is not just a quantum phenomenon, though quantum entanglement does have some non-classical features. (Such as violating the Bell inequalities.)

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/12/2018 4:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:32:24 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 3:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

Define "measurement".

Brent

Isn't this one of the big unsolved problems in QM? How would you explain spontaneous entanglement?

I've never heard the term and I don't know what it means.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:59:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 4:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:32:24 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 3:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

Define "measurement".

Brent

Isn't this one of the big unsolved problems in QM? How would you explain spontaneous entanglement?

I've never heard the term and I don't know what it means.

Brent

You're way too modest. Take the case of a free Nitrogen molecule. It's isolated, thus not entangled, but becomes entangled due to some interaction with its environment, what I call "spontaneous entanglement". Or better yet, consider electron with spin its only DoF. How does it become entanglement if Joe the Plumber doesn't perform an SG experiment? Specifically, when spontaneous entanglement occurs, what role has spin wf in this process? I'm trying to understand the general process whereby free systems become entangled with their environments, which, IIUC, is a key process in decoherence. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/12/2018 5:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:59:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 4:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:32:24 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 3:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

Define "measurement".

Brent

Isn't this one of the big unsolved problems in QM? How would you explain spontaneous entanglement?

I've never heard the term and I don't know what it means.

Brent

You're way too modest. Take the case of a free Nitrogen molecule. It's isolated, thus not entangled,

?? The "thus" doesn't follow.

but becomes entangled due to some interaction with its environment, what I call "spontaneous entanglement".

OK

Or better yet, consider electron with spin its only DoF. How does it become entanglement if Joe the Plumber doesn't perform an SG experiment?

I dunno.  It collides with a He atom.  It passes near a magnet. It can get entangled with something else lots of different ways.

Specifically, when spontaneous entanglement occurs, what role has spin wf in this process?

The interaction Hamiltonian of the system wf (electron+stuff it's interacting with) had a term involving the magnetic moment of the electron.

I'm trying to understand the general process whereby free systems become entangled with their environments, which, IIUC, is a key process in decoherence. AG

Entangled doesn't necessarily mean "entangled with the environment".

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

[Bruce Kellett]

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state. I suspect that it is a case like this that Bruno is thinking of when he claims that there is no non-locality in Everettian QM. Each possible momentum of one of the particles after the interaction is matched by the corresponding momentum of the other, given overall momentum conservation. Each momentum of the overall superposition would be though to exist in a separate world, so that there is no non-locality in the determination of one momentum by measuring the other particles -- one is just locating oneself in one of the infinity of separate (pseudo-classical) worlds. (This does not work, however, because the separate particles are measured independently, and generally in different worlds. See below.)

The trouble is that this treatment of elements of the superposition as separate classical worlds does not work for the case of spin entanglement in the spin singlet case. Prior to any measurement, one could view the orientation of the spin axis of each individual spin-half particle as a superposition of an infinite number of different spin states, one for each possible orientation. These would then be paired with corresponding spin states in the same orientation for other particle. One could then view this as an infinite number of worlds, in each of which the two particles have definite spin orientations. The idea would then be that by selecting a measurement orientation for one particle, one is simply selecting the world in which one is located.

It sounds as though this would eliminate the non-locality in the same way as definite momentum states for each particle eliminates the non-locality for the classical billiard balls. The trouble, though, is that the two ends of the system are independent, so that while choosing a measurement orientation at one end locates you in the world in which that particle is spinning along that axis, that does not select the world in which the other particle is measured. The measurement of the second particle is, by construction, independent of the measurement of the first, so that measurement of the second particle locates you in the world in which the spin is oriented along the second measurement axis. Since the two measurement axes are chose independently, in general the second measurement will not be in the world in which the first measurement was made. And since the worlds are, by definition, non-interacting and independent, the separate results can never be compared in the same world, again, contradicting experiment.

The net result of this picture is that there will be no correlation between the spin measurement results of the two particles -- each measurement was made in a world in which the results are 50/50 for up/down. Since there is no interaction between the measurements, they are not made in the same world, so they cannot be correlated -- contradicting with experimental results. So even if you view the particles in the entangled singlet state as defining an infinity of worlds, one for each element of the superposition of possible spin axes, you still have non-locality in that the experiment shows that the second independent measurement must have been made in the *same* world. That requires a non-local influence from one measurement to determine the world in which the other measurement is made. In fact, this whole analysis in terms of a superposition of worlds corresponding to different spin axes is rather silly, because the spin axis is not actually set by the measurement. What the orientation of the S-G magnet, or the polarizer, determines is the spin component that will be measured, not the axis along which the particle is spinning.

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 3:10:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state.

I suppose you mean that each particle is represented as a wave packet and you're treating the interaction as a scattering problem where EM and gravity are not involved, but rather as a "mechanical" interaction where momentum is preserved. If the particles become entangled due to the interaction, and are now not separable, what exactly does "not separable" mean in this context and how does it come about? TIA, AG
 

[Bruce Kellett]

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 3:10:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state.

I suppose you mean that each particle is represented as a wave packet and you're treating the interaction as a scattering problem where EM and gravity are not involved, but rather as a "mechanical" interaction where momentum is preserved. If the particles become entangled due to the interaction, and are now not separable, what exactly does "not separable" mean in this context and how does it come about? TIA, AG

"Non-separable" means what it says: neither particle that participated in the interaction has a definite quantum state that can be specified without including the other state. That is why measuring one of the particles gives you information about the other, widely separated particle. It comes about from momentum conservation in the interaction. Any interaction involving a conserved quantity (and most interactions are subject to conservation laws) leads to an entanglement. That is why entanglement is ubiquitous. Of course, any particular entanglement becomes diffused through interactions with other particles, so the pure two state entanglement with momentum is fairly short lived. However, particle spin, or the polarization of a photon, is not so easily disturbed, and angular momentum conservation can lead to long-lived entanglements between spin states, such that the spin of neither particle can be specified in isolation, but the combined state of both particles must be considered.

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 11:02:03 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 3:10:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state.

I suppose you mean that each particle is represented as a wave packet and you're treating the interaction as a scattering problem where EM and gravity are not involved, but rather as a "mechanical" interaction where momentum is preserved. If the particles become entangled due to the interaction, and are now not separable, what exactly does "not separable" mean in this context and how does it come about? TIA, AG

I think entanglement here means that somehow, through the interaction, the scattering process, the wf of the total system consists of sums of tensor states, each a product of the subsystem states, analogous to the wf of entangled singlet state.  Hard to see how this comes about, and its relation to non-locality. TIA, AG

[Bruce Kellett]

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 11:02:03 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 3:10:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state.

I suppose you mean that each particle is represented as a wave packet and you're treating the interaction as a scattering problem where EM and gravity are not involved, but rather as a "mechanical" interaction where momentum is preserved. If the particles become entangled due to the interaction, and are now not separable, what exactly does "not separable" mean in this context and how does it come about? TIA, AG

I think entanglement here means that somehow, through the interaction, the scattering process, the wf of the total system consists of sums of tensor states, each a product of the subsystem states, analogous to the wf of entangled singlet state.  Hard to see how this comes about, and its relation to non-locality. TIA, AG

It might be easier to understand if I give some equations. In the centre-of-mass frame, after the interaction the total momentum in any direction is zero. Consider just a one-dimensional case. The combined wave function is:

      |psi> = Sum_i |p_i>|-p_i>,

where the first ket is particle 1 and the second ket particle 2 and the sum is over possible momenta. As you say, this is a tensor product of individual particle states. Since there is complete correlation between the momenta of the separate particles for all possible momenta ('possible' determined by energy conservation), this state cannot be written as a simple product of separate states for particles 1 and 2. Hence it is non-separable.

It is not hard to see how this comes about -- it is a direct consequence of momentum conservation. And the non-locality comes about because a measurement on particle 1 tells you the momentum of particle 2, no matter how far apart the particles are.

Come on Alan. This is not really so hard, you know.

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 12:48:11 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 11:02:03 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 3:10:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56:40 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: <agrays...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:12:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:26:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/12/2018 12:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Let's simplify the model. Instead of a Nitrogen molecule, consider a free electron at rest in some frame. Its only degree of freedom is spin IIUC. Is it your claim that this electron become entangled with its environment via its spin WF, which is a superposition of UP and DN? Does this spin WF participate in the entanglement? TIA, AG

The electron's spin dof can only become entangled with the environment by an interaction with the environment.

Brent

Does that happen spontaneously, in the absence of a measurement? AG

If entanglement of a system with the environment requires measurement, and if virtually everything in the physical world is entangled with the environment, aka "the world" -- which seems to be the prevailing belief -- what concept of measurement do we need to explain this?  AG

As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.

Is it correct to assume that once a system becomes entangled with another system, regardless of how it happens the two systems form a relationship analogous to the singlet state where non-locality applies between the two systems now considered non-separable? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality, a point IIUC which LC made earlier on this thread? AG

The systems are not necessarily non-separable. In the classical situation I outlined below, The balls are separable after the interaction because each has a well-defined momentum, even though this might be unknown before one ball is measured. The entanglement is sufficient so that one can determine the momentum of one by measuring the other, but this is not particularly mysterious in the classical case.

The quantum case is different in that the particles do not have definite momentum after the interaction -- they are in a superposition of an infinite number of different momentum states, so the particles are not separable -- it requires both particles to specify the overall state.

I suppose you mean that each particle is represented as a wave packet and you're treating the interaction as a scattering problem where EM and gravity are not involved, but rather as a "mechanical" interaction where momentum is preserved. If the particles become entangled due to the interaction, and are now not separable, what exactly does "not separable" mean in this context and how does it come about? TIA, AG

I think entanglement here means that somehow, through the interaction, the scattering process, the wf of the total system consists of sums of tensor states, each a product of the subsystem states, analogous to the wf of entangled singlet state.  Hard to see how this comes about, and its relation to non-locality. TIA, AG

It might be easier to understand if I give some equations. In the centre-of-mass frame, after the interaction the total momentum in any direction is zero. Consider just a one-dimensional case. The combined wave function is:

      |psi> = Sum_i |p_i>|-p_i>,

where the first ket is particle 1 and the second ket particle 2 and the sum is over possible momenta. As you say, this is a tensor product of individual particle states. Since there is complete correlation between the momenta of the separate particles for all possible momenta ('possible' determined by energy conservation), this state cannot be written as a simple product of sepa-- arate states for particles 1 and 2. Hence it is non-separable.

It is not hard to see how this comes about -- it is a direct consequence of momentum conservation. And the non-locality comes about because a measurement on particle 1 tells you the momentum of particle 2, no matter how far apart the particles are.

Come on Alan. This is not really so hard, you know.

Bruce

I tend to be very detailed oriented, particularly in this subject, so for me it's difficult to see the final result without going through the precise details of the mathematics including, importantly in this case, the interaction Hamiltonian -- a subject I need to review. What does it look like in this case?

I assume you are summing over the momenta of the wave packets, which brings up another issue. As I recall, for a free particle, the usual treatment is to assume some fixed momentum and then solve the SWE. But this is not quite right given the uncertainty principle. In reality, one must use a wave packet and it seems non trivial to determine its spread in a particular situation.

AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

Bruce

[scerir]

Bruce:

'As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.'

It seems (to me) also interesting the scheme to create, "ex post", distant entangled atomic states.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810013

Sometimes this seems also called "time-reversed EPR"

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182

-serafino

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

It's an ostensible contradiction with relativity that information transfer cannot be instantaneous. Now please don't use the semantic dodge that there is no information transfer because it's just an "influence". AG

[Brent Meeker]

It's not a semantic dodge.  It's a provable consequence of quantum randomness that correlations can't be used to transfer information FTL.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

We all know, or should, that an informational message cannot be sent using non locality, but something is sent -- aka an INFLUENCE, which I call a dodge -- instantaneously regardless of distance. Not understandable with our current understanding of space-time. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/13/2018 2:48 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

Brent

It's an ostensible contradiction with relativity that information transfer cannot be instantaneous. Now please don't use the semantic dodge that there is no information transfer because it's just an "influence". AG

It's not a semantic dodge.  It's a provable consequence of quantum randomness that correlations can't be used to transfer information FTL.

Brent

We all know, or should, that an informational message cannot be sent using non locality, but something is sent -- aka an INFLUENCE, which I call a dodge -- instantaneously regardless of distance. Not understandable with our current understanding of space-time. AG

See above.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Another dodge. You've got two separated subsystems, provably separated, but "non separable". Gotta luv it. AG

[Brent Meeker]

Separated in spacetime doesn't mean separated in Hilbert space.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

With local realism dead, this makes no sense; unintelligible. Maybe you've gotten used to it, and thus not a problem. AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

The reason touching an entangled system here is correlated with it there is the system is the same in both regions of space. Quantum mechanics is not really primarily about causality in space or spacetime, but rather has a representation in space and time.

LC

 

[agrays...@gmail.com]

You're in denial. Better to admit a baffling result and let the chips fall. AG

 

[Brent Meeker]

Are you also baffled by the result of measuring the momentum of one of two billard balls after their collision?

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Not if the interaction is treated classically since local realism is assumed. But if it's treated quantum mechanically, the momenta don't exist prior to the measurement. This implies instantaneous action at a distance. AG

[Brent Meeker]

But why does that make baffling?  Do you realize that the classical case would have been baffling before Newton.  Someone would have wondered, "How does the distant billard ball know what momentum to have?  It's witchcraft."

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Sure, someone could have wondered, and probably did, why momentum is conserved in an elastic collision. Good question. But in the quantum treatment using the CI, we claim the momenta don't exist prior to measurement. This is a huge difference with huge implications, one being non locality. I'm sure you see the difference and are making me show you what you already know. OK. I like the challenge. AG

[Brent Meeker]

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted.  You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!"

Brent

I'm sure you see the difference and are making me show you what you already know. OK. I like the challenge. AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

That does not follow from any proof of “non-locality” in Everett Quantum Mechanics. But that is entailed indeed in QM + the assumption of a unique physical universe.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Everettian QM is identical to standard QM in every possible experiment/prediction.

I am not sure of that, but it is unclear because “standard QM” is unclear to me. The collapse is never defined or explained, so, somehow “standard QM” is not a theory. It is a theory in company of an unclear dualist metaphysics.

QM implies non-locality in any interpretation.

QM implies a non-local phenomenology from all relative state, but there is no physical action at a distance occurring anywhere in the universal wave. At least I have never seen an evidence, still less a proof of this.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

So much the worse for mechanism.

You talk like if you knew that there is a world. Show me one evidence.

You talk of an "infinity of worlds". Surely that means that there is at least one?

I use the word “world” colloquially, or like a logician, where a world is a model, or even just a point in a set. They are not primitively existing things, but mathematical completion of pieces of computations. I predicted the many-world *appearances* from the mathematical fact that elementary arithmetic emulates all computations. In a first approximation, you can identify world with computations. Note that by computation, I mean the arithmetical object. Not its physical implementations, which is a more relative notion.

I imagine that you see yourself as living in a "world"; and that that world has a set of relatively consistent properties. Abolish that notion and life suddenly becomes very difficult indeed!

No, mechanism explain why we see ourself as living in a world, but without committing oneself ontologically.

Oh, I see that now you admit that we live in a world.

No, I admit that we see ourself living in a world. That is the case in dreams too.

What does ontological commitment have to do with it? You are just obfuscating again.

No, it is the key point. We can explain why numbers feel themselves living in a world, without assuming world, or living entities, just Robinson’s axioms.

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true

?

Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Your authorities are terminally flawed, as I have repeatedly shown. If you can't recall the refutations of these silly papers, then look in the archives!

I answered them. Others too.

You may have typed some words in response to my clear refutations of their arguments, but you have by no means answered the criticisms. Your famed logic has failed you, once again.

Ad hominem. 

If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to show the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact.

The fact is demonstrated by the experiments that test Bell inequalities on the singlet state.

Not at all. This proves the existence of influence at a distance when we suppose that a measurement gives an outcome, but in QM without collapse, a measurement gives all outcomes, with varying relative probabilities.

You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it involves 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See more in the archive.

The singlet state involves only four possible combinations of experimental results

We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet state (in classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of combinations of experimental result. Like Maudlin explains, in the Everett QM, it is not even clear how we could measure non-locality. The notion might even been senseless.

-- each such combination can be identified with a separate universe. The infinity of universe you keep appealing to are nothing more than a figment of your imagination; they play no role in the understanding of the physical situation. It is mere obfuscation on your part.

Bruno, it is clear that you have no interest in actually understanding the implications of entanglement in quantum mechanics. We could go round these circles for ever, but you are not going to improve your understanding unless you actually engage with the arguments.

Ad hominem.

Bruno

PS Oops, I see there are still 40 comments in this thread, but I have to go already. To be continued ...

Bruce

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:39:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 7:15 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 2:05:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 1:08:55 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 5:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:50:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:24:11 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 6:53:23 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

Brent

It's an ostensible contradiction with relativity that information transfer cannot be instantaneous. Now please don't use the semantic dodge that there is no information transfer because it's just an "influence". AG

The reason touching an entangled system here is correlated with it there is the system is the same in both regions of space. Quantum mechanics is not really primarily about causality in space or spacetime, but rather has a representation in space and time.

LC

You're in denial. Better to admit a baffling result and let the chips fall. AG

Are you also baffled by the result of measuring the momentum of one of two billard balls after their collision?

Brent

Not if the interaction is treated classically since local realism is assumed. But if it's treated quantum mechanically, the momenta don't exist prior to the measurement. This implies instantaneous action at a distance. AG

But why does that make baffling?  Do you realize that the classical case would have been baffling before Newton.  Someone would have wondered, "How does the distant billard ball know what momentum to have?  It's witchcraft."

Brent

Sure, someone could have wondered, and probably did, why momentum is conserved in an elastic collision. Good question. But in the quantum treatment using the CI, we claim the momenta don't exist prior to measurement. This is a huge difference with huge implications, one being non locality.

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted. 

So every physicist, I would say virtually without exception, believes QM is a non local theory except you. Why do you post the obvious in an excuse for a rebuttal? -- that no information is transferred -- when you KNOW what we're discussing; namely, that there appears to be an "influence" (for lack of a better word) that is transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY. You're the one in denial, not me. AG
 

You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!"

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about witchcraft  I am just acknowledging what virtually every physicist admits; that based on our present understanding of space-time, the physical mechanism underlying non locality is not understood. As for the Newtonian conservation laws, IIRC they're provable based on Newton's laws of motion and don't challenge our current understanding of space-time. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/14/2018 6:04 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted. 

So every physicist, I would say virtually without exception, believes QM is a non local theory except you.

No.  They agree with me that no information can be transmitted FTL.  That's the definition of local.

Why do you post the obvious in an excuse for a rebuttal? -- that no information is transferred -- when you KNOW what we're discussing; namely, that there appears to be an "influence" (for lack of a better word) that is transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY. You're the one in denial, not me. AG
 

You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!"

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about witchcraft  I am just acknowledging what virtually every physicist admits; that based on our present understanding of space-time, the physical mechanism underlying non locality is not understood.

Your problem is that you imagine that you perfectly understand the Newtonian world view.  It's like water to a fish for you.  But space and time are themselves unexplained.

As for the Newtonian conservation laws, IIRC they're provable based on Newton's laws of motion and don't challenge our current understanding of space-time. AG

What "understanding of spacetime"?  That understanding is no more than facility in using it to make predictions.

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:03:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/14/2018 6:04 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted. 

So every physicist, I would say virtually without exception, believes QM is a non local theory except you.

No.  They agree with me that no information can be transmitted FTL.  That's the definition of local.

Come back when you can explain "instantaneous influence".  No one can explain it, and neither can you. BTW, I never claimed information can be transferred FTL, just "influences", like just about everyone who thinks about the subject. But what is an "influence"? I submit you have no clue. AG

Why do you post the obvious in an excuse for a rebuttal? -- that no information is transferred -- when you KNOW what we're discussing; namely, that there appears to be an "influence" (for lack of a better word) that is transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY. You're the one in denial, not me. AG
 

You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!"

Your problem is that you imagine that you perfectly understand the Newtonian world view.  It's like water to a fish for you.  But space and time are themselves unexplained.

I don't imagine anything of the sort. AG

As for the Newtonian conservation laws, IIRC they're provable based on Newton's laws of motion and don't challenge our current understanding of space-time. AG

What "understanding of spacetime"? 

Ideas like particles or events can be spatially and temporally separated, or not. Is this the first time you've heard this idea? AG
 

That understanding is no more than facility in using it to make predictions.

It's more than that.  It's the world, wherein we exist. See above. AG

Brent

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have been around the block on these matters with you. If you refuse to accept them then fine. I can't spend my time trying to convince creationists of evolution and I can't try to convince people who's metaphysical baggage prevents them from accepting something that we know is empirically correct. Quantum mechanics with its nonlocality and entanglement tells us that a quantum system is in many places at once. If I perform a rotation on one part of an EPR pair, say by adjusting a magnetic field, the other part similarly adjusts. The reason is not because there is a causal communication, but because the two parts of the EPR pair are not separable in space; they are in fact just the same thing, and further this wholeness is epistemologically greater. 

Curiously with quantum field theory a lot of nonlocality is swept under the rug. The vanishing of equal time commutators on spatial manifolds demolishes a lot of this. With quantum fields though since entangled systems are short lived and decay the entanglement phase is quickly scrambled into the reservoir of states in the measurement apparatus. It is why the LHC is not used to research the foundations of quantum mechanics. In fact hadron detectors are colorimeters, which indicates heat an loss of quantum coherence. So the loss of physics is not that significant.

However, once you bring spacetime into the picture nonlocality returns. This is one reason quantum field theoretic methods have not worked with quantum gravitation. With quantum gravitation nonlocality in fact returns with a vengence.

LC

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:02:47 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:03:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/14/2018 6:04 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted. 

So every physicist, I would say virtually without exception, believes QM is a non local theory except you.

No.  They agree with me that no information can be transmitted FTL.  That's the definition of local.

Come back when you can explain "instantaneous influence".  No one can explain it, and neither can you. BTW, I never claimed information can be transferred FTL, just "influences", like just about everyone who thinks about the subject. But what is an "influence"? I submit you have no clue. AG

Why do you post the obvious in an excuse for a rebuttal? -- that no information is transferred -- when you KNOW what we're discussing; namely, that there appears to be an "influence" (for lack of a better word) that is transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY. You're the one in denial, not me. AG
 

You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!"

Your problem is that you imagine that you perfectly understand the Newtonian world view.  It's like water to a fish for you.  But space and time are themselves unexplained.

I don't imagine anything of the sort. AG

As for the Newtonian conservation laws, IIRC they're provable based on Newton's laws of motion and don't challenge our current understanding of space-time. AG

What "understanding of spacetime"? 

Ideas like particles or events can be spatially and temporally separated, or not. Is this the first time you've heard this idea? AG
 

That understanding is no more than facility in using it to make predictions.

It's more than that.  It's the world, wherein we exist. See above. AG

Brent

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG
 

If you refuse to accept them then fine. I can't spend my time trying to convince creationists of evolution and I can't try to convince people who's metaphysical baggage prevents them from accepting something that we know is empirically correct.
 

If you were paying even casual attention you'd know I never disputed the empirical finding. AG
 

Quantum mechanics with its nonlocality and entanglement tells us that a quantum system is in many places at once. If I perform a rotation on one part of an EPR pair, say by adjusting a magnetic field, the other part similarly adjusts. The reason is not because there is a causal communication, but because the two parts of the EPR pair are not separable in space; they are in fact just the same thing, and further this wholeness is epistemologically greater. 

I see. The two parts or subsystems are not separable in space despite the fact that the two measurement devices are, and both subsystems are the same thing even though their arguably simultaneous measurements differ. If that makes you happy, I have no quarrel. AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

If the EPR pairs are not separated in space, why do we need two instruments which ARE separated in space to measure them? Does the Emperor have any clothes, or am I too metaphysically deficient and thus unable to see the clothes?  AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you understand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG

Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 3:03:42 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG

Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG

No listing of any book by Redhead on Amazon. AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 3:35:01 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 3:03:42 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG

Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG

No listing of any book by Redhead on Amazon. AG

You must be referring to Michael Redhead, who didn't write a book but has an article on EPR published last fall. No citations so probably not hugely insightful, and not easy to download. Requires downloading a program to alter Chrome, which I don't want. AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you understand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG 

The idea of time reversed quantum states or hidden variables recovering classical physics as an underlying machinery of quantum mechanics is wrong. There are exponents plugging this, but they are not winning over the physics community much. Wharton is big on this sort of idea and there are others, so it is not dead, but I frankly regard it as zombie physics. Reversing the time direction of signals or causality for some hidden variables does not change the Bell, Kochen-Specker and related results on quantum nonlocality.

LC 

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I have been around the block on these matters with you.

In your imagination. AG

You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage aside.

LC

I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may fool yourself, but not me.  AG

If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG

Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG

Here is Redhead's book on Amazon. It is published by Clarendon press affiliated with Oxford. I reread my copy of this a couple of years ago.

LC

https://www.amazon.com/Incompleteness-Nonlocality-Realism-Prolegomenon-Philosophy/dp/0198242387/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523822635&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Metaphysics+of+quantum+mechanics+redhead

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/15/2018 8:35 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG

No listing of any book by Redhead on Amazon. AG

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521474051/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A2W0XT7SMZ33XS&psc=1

Brent

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Don't you think it's somewhat dishonorable to accuse me of "not getting it" despite the alleged valiant efforts of you and others on Vic's list to show me the light, when in fact my primary and possibly only previous argumentation on this subject was in the context of Vic's claim to use time reversal to come up with an explanatory model of non locality? Vic was trying to close a gap, but it couldn't work since he was relying on hand-waving and "proof by diagram". I was correct to criticize this approach, as you now essentially acknowledge. But earlier, here, you were memory challenged and obviously annoyed by my pov on non locality -- simply that we are lacking an explanatory model -- and thus conjured up false facts to reduce your annoyance; namely, to falsely allege how obtuse I have been despite previous efforts to show me my (non existent) errors. AG

[Bruce Kellett]

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 11 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to show the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact.

The fact is demonstrated by the experiments that test Bell inequalities on the singlet state.

Not at all. This proves the existence of influence at a distance when we suppose that a measurement gives an outcome, but in QM without collapse, a measurement gives all outcomes, with varying relative probabilities.

The measurement on one of the spin-half particles in the singlet state has only two possible outcomes. As is often said in discussions of non-locality in Everettian QM, 'measurements that are not made do not have outcomes!'

You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it involves 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See more in the archive.

The singlet state involves only four possible combinations of experimental results

We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet state (in classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of combinations of experimental result.

This is false. Even in Everettian QM there are only two possible outcomes for each spin measurement: this leads to two distinct worlds for each particle of the pair. Hence only 4 possible parallel universes. Where do you get the idea that there are infinitely many parallel universes? This is not part of Everettian QM, or any other model of QM. But even if you can manufacture an infinity of universes, you still have not shown how this removes the non-locality inherent in the quantum formalism.

Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Apr 2018, at 18:05, 'scerir' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Bruce:

'As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.'

It seems (to me) also interesting the scheme to create, "ex post", distant entangled atomic states.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810013

Sometimes this seems also called "time-reversed EPR"

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182

The second paper is quite interesting and is a good review, notably of Hardy thought experiment, which was itself a good recap of QM weirdness (even with a single particle interference).

I have use a similar argument that QM implies acting on the past (a long time ago, before Aspect experience), but I was assuming realism, which seems here to be just the mono-universe hypothesis. Again, with the multiverse or better the relative state theory (Everett), there is no physical action on the past, but a self-localzation---in which relative branch we, and our coupled observer that we can eventually meet (not the others!), are.

Bruno

-serafino

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Apr 2018, at 20:53, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

It could mean having a coherent ontology, a coherent phenomenology, and a coherent explanation of the relations between them.

Bruno

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Apr 2018, at 23:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 9:28:02 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 12:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 6:53:23 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

Brent

It's an ostensible contradiction with relativity that information transfer cannot be instantaneous. Now please don't use the semantic dodge that there is no information transfer because it's just an "influence". AG

It's not a semantic dodge.  It's a provable consequence of quantum randomness that correlations can't be used to transfer information FTL.

Brent

We all know, or should, that an informational message cannot be sent using non locality, but something is sent -- aka an INFLUENCE, which I call a dodge -- instantaneously regardless of distance. Not understandable with our current understanding of space-time. AG

Yes, but that does not happen in the many-histories view of reality. Still less in arithmetic, although there too we get an explanation of why things have to look indeterminate and non-local (and non boolean, non entirely computable, continuous, etc.).

Physical reality is similar to consistency, and god. It exists, but cannot be assumed without leading to difficulties and contradictions.

Bruno

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Apr 2018, at 06:39, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 4/13/2018 7:15 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 2:05:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 1:08:55 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 5:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:50:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:24:11 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 6:53:23 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

Brent

It's an ostensible contradiction with relativity that information transfer cannot be instantaneous. Now please don't use the semantic dodge that there is no information transfer because it's just an "influence". AG

The reason touching an entangled system here is correlated with it there is the system is the same in both regions of space. Quantum mechanics is not really primarily about causality in space or spacetime, but rather has a representation in space and time.

LC

You're in denial. Better to admit a baffling result and let the chips fall. AG

Are you also baffled by the result of measuring the momentum of one of two billard balls after their collision?

Brent

Not if the interaction is treated classically since local realism is assumed. But if it's treated quantum mechanically, the momenta don't exist prior to the measurement. This implies instantaneous action at a distance. AG

But why does that make baffling?  Do you realize that the classical case would have been baffling before Newton.  Someone would have wondered, "How does the distant billard ball know what momentum to have?  It's witchcraft."

Brent

Sure, someone could have wondered, and probably did, why momentum is conserved in an elastic collision. Good question. But in the quantum treatment using the CI, we claim the momenta don't exist prior to measurement. This is a huge difference with huge implications, one being non locality.

But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is transmitted.  You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value.  It's witchcraft!”

But then you are back to the dodging alluded to before. The randomness saves indeed special relativity, but that makes the non-locality even more looking like witchcraft. But Everett saves both locality and randomness, which becomes related to the fact that no machine, nor any quantum being, can be aware of the branches he belongs in the universal wave or in arithmetic. 

That is why I take the EPR-Everett-Bell-Aspect as the “discovery” that we are in a many-dream-computation-histories structure (that exists already as a mechanist consequence of Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz)).

Bruno

[agrays...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:19:22 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Apr 2018, at 18:05, 'scerir' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Bruce:

'As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.'

It seems (to me) also interesting the scheme to create, "ex post", distant entangled atomic states.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810013

Sometimes this seems also called "time-reversed EPR"

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182

The second paper is quite interesting and is a good review, notably of Hardy thought experiment, which was itself a good recap of QM weirdness (even with a single particle interference).

I have use a similar argument that QM implies acting on the past (a long time ago, before Aspect experience), but I was assuming realism, which seems here to be just the mono-universe hypothesis. Again, with the multiverse or better the relative state theory (Everett), there is no physical action on the past, but a self-localzation---in which relative branch we, and our coupled observer that we can eventually meet (not the others!), are.

Bruno

It's hard to believe that people can be so dumb, really dumb, to think QM means other copies of themselves are the result of experiments in this world.  But unfortunately, they ARE that dumb. I see it as a kind of mental disease. AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

He could get an infinity of universes by extrapolating what the newly created observers do in their respective universes. Some will repeat the same experiment, some not, but each leading to a cascade of other universes. AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Don't you think it's somewhat dishonorable to accuse me of "not getting it" despite the alleged valiant efforts of you and others on Vic's list to show me the light, when in fact my primary and possibly only previous argumentation on this subject was in the context of Vic's claim to use time reversal to come up with an explanatory model of non locality? Vic was trying to close a gap, but it couldn't work since he was relying on hand-waving and "proof by diagram". I was correct to criticize this approach, as you now essentially acknowledge. But earlier, here, you were memory challenged and obviously annoyed by my pov on non locality -- simply that we are lacking an explanatory model -- and thus conjured up false facts to reduce your annoyance; namely, to falsely allege how obtuse I have been despite previous efforts to show me my (non existent) errors. AG

I leave the ball in your court to do the reading and study required to actually understand this. I really do not have time to write an almost endless succession of posts on this topic.  You have a tendency with arguments to whittle away a point to infinitesimals as you cite an almost endless nested set of objections, most of which are not particularly valid.

LC

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/16/2018 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Apr 2018, at 20:53, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG

What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the equations to make correct inferences? 

It could mean having a coherent ontology, a coherent phenomenology, and a coherent explanation of the relations between them.

I think "coherent" just means expressed in equations and the interpretation of them that allows their application.  It's not some separate magic you add.

Brent.

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Now you're behaving indistinguishable from the HOI POLLOI who have ZERO recollection of history and great disdain for serious argumentation, which, by its very nature, is often extended. You're the kind of person, very common, who would have endorsed the drinking of the Hemlock. Let me refresh your memory, AGAIN. On VIc's thread my primary discussion concerning non locality was to deny his time reversal model as viable. How could it be insofar as it relied on hand-waving and "proof by diagram"? Recently, here, you have AFFIRMED the validity of my opinion. Can't you recall? It was YESTERDAY! As for my posts having little or no validity, sometimes, even when mistaken, they have value in stimulating useful discussion. I surmise this never occurred to a big brain like you. I will be kind and not specifically relay what some have said of your arcane posts and endless stream of mostly unintelligible speculations; user UN-friendly; not worth reading; not being taken seriously! But we politely indulge them nevertheless without any complaining. So I suggest you take your arrogance and shove it where the Sun never shines. AG 

[agrays...@gmail.com]

So in your opinion Vic must have been foolish to try to develop a viable explanation, or model, or whatever you want to call it for non locality? What do you know that he did not? AG

[agrays...@gmail.com]

Vic also wasn't up to your high standards. If he had been, he wouldn't have tried time reversal.  AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/15/2018 8:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet state (in classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of combinations of experimental result.

This is false. Even in Everettian QM there are only two possible outcomes for each spin measurement: this leads to two distinct worlds for each particle of the pair. Hence only 4 possible parallel universes. Where do you get the idea that there are infinitely many parallel universes? This is not part of Everettian QM, or any other model of QM. But even if you can manufacture an infinity of universes, you still have not shown how this removes the non-locality inherent in the quantum formalism.

Bruno's ontology is all possible computations, so he's already assumed (countably) infinite worlds.  When there are only four or two outcomes of an experiment it just means his worlds are divided into four or two equivalent subsets.

Brent