On 12/11/2013 2:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible
which
leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR
paradox:
1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
2. Measurements have more than one outcome
In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false
or
many-world's is true.
Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant
laws
of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this
appears to
be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.)
Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's
transactional interpretation.
Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional
interpretation, it
is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional
interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new
things
outside of standard QM.
I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's.
This table should be updated in that case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations
Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment
would
relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is
explicitly non-local?
I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions in
several places that it is explicitly non-local:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
What are the zig-zags?
By "traveling" back in time and then forward a particle can be at two
spacelike
separate events.
Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and
electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with
the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter
interpretation, neither is FTL.
Right. So it's "local" in the sense of slower than light, although it effectively
implements a non-local hidden variable.
Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain
all
observations in QM.
But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in
repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations
violating
Bell's inequality - in the same world.
Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens?
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080
Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden
variables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett.
As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leaves
two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one
outcome.
When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before,
leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is split
separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to
the other, creating four superposed states.
But the measurements with more than one outcome turn out to be more correlated than
allowed by classical mechanics. So the four outcomes are not equally probable, in spite
of the symmetry of the experiment. That's why it implies non-locality in any hidden
variable model. I don't see that multiple worlds makes the non-locality go away, it just
seems to rephrase it in terms of some worlds interfering more than others.
The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not
local in
spacetime.
Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis (
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something
else?
No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution of
the SWE
over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in general is not
localized in spacetime.
Locality (as I've used the term) refers to the idea that things are only affected by
their immediate environment. I think you are speaking of something else when you speak
of being able to locate it somewhere in space-time.
If a wave function extends over a large region, then a local interaction with it here
affects it's value over there. That's why a choice of measurement polarization at one end
of an EPR affects the results observed at the other end, even when the two are spacelike.
Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe
is
small and that they are unique?
There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only
*thinks* the
can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that
viewpoint.
Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it
seems to
imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced
(against its
will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be
determined by
something operating external to that mind.
I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism
is
inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by
a
computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity
limited to
N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If
hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer
decided to
choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on
interval of
2^n or less.
There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if
hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole.
What if we have two remote locations measuring entangled particles, and
whether
they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on the i-th
binary
digit of Pi at one locations, and the i-th binary digit of Euler's constant
at the
other location? How can hyper-determinism force the digits of Pi or e?
?? I think the i-th digit pi and the i-th digit of e are already determined.
Yes, but they are determined by math, not this hyper-determinism concept which I
understand is a hypothesized physical process.
I'm not even sure what a "physical" process would mean in this context. It's determined
by the way the universe is, like 2+2 is determined to be 4.
You said hyperdeterminism means experimenters only think they can make independent
choices, but what if an experimenter chooses to rely on the digits of some constant
number to inform his or her choices in the experiment? Does hyper-determinism decide not
only that the experimenter chooses to use Pi, but also each of the resulting steps the
experimenter makes when using Pi as his/her guide?
Right. That's why it's *hyper*-determinism.
Brent
--
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
