On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net>
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of
the theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at how
spacetime emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topic
to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the
frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL
and non-locality?
Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not
a single state of the superposition.
I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say
it in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary
base).
A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up
and Down particles.
The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up,
Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag:
the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles.
but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is
Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up.
Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can
have just a single state.
I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is
a single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly
contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the
universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and
it is perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all
possible complementary states of the universe.
In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary
intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that
the INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all
sets (which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It
is similar to a^0 = 1.
With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets
in the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average
universal machine observes when it looks below its substitution level
relatively to its most probable computations/universal neighbor.
Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the
explanation is in the "material", probabilistic, intensional nuance of
self-reference.
Bruno
Jason
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is
just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the
system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are
just some labels.
I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
required for the MWI?)
Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1
x2 y2 z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is
correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say
this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely
many results |s1 s2>. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins
in a way that violates Bell's inequality.
If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do,
before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which
wouldn't be the first time.
I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as
measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each
other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment
(and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an
observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension
measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has
already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their
superposition.
Jason
I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made
sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...
The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for
EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one,
where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to
go either way in time.
So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological
implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I
don't understand the explanation.
In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light
itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one
imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to
cats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to
spread any further.
That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead
of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive
or dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't
fall off as 1/r^2.
No, but it will travel STL!
Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a
kind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interesting
idea, similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero
probability.
But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are
near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their
measurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c and
will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the
middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can
confirm the violation of Bell's inequality.
Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with
time symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS"
cuts it). I tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only
because everyone else roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it
at least has potential.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
