On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 21/11/2017 12:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The singlet state is intrinsically non-local.
I am not sure what that means, but I can imagine this could make
sense in the "one-world" hypothesis, not much in many-worlds, still
less in many-computations.
The singlet state is intrinsically non-local because it involves two
particles without specifying any particular separation. Because the
singlet requires both particles, it is clearly non-separable -- it
cannot be explained by the purely local properties of the individual
particles. Non-separability means that changing one of the particles
influences the other 'instantaneously'. That is non-locality.
A simple argument is that any experimental set-up showing a non-
locality can be simulated by a classical (local) computer, and the
simulated observer(s), like all the Bob-Alice pair we get, will all
(the majority) describe an apparent non-locality, despite we,
looking patiently at the whole emulation will see that there are
none.
That argument has been debunked by Brunner et al, arxiv:1303.2849
If that is correct, then Church's thesis is false. Hard to believe.
Note that a seemingly similar (to Brunner) argument is in Friedman's
book, but it is invalid. All known quantum phenomenon are computable.
The one non computable requires a non computable Hamiltonian, of some
ad-hoc waves, like Nielsen's e-iOt, with O being Chaitin's number. If
we are digital machines, we can't even recognize as non computable
such phenomenon.
It actually has nothing to do with whether people meet or not - it
describes a situation which explicitly violates Einstein's notion
of local realism: the state of one of the entangled pair is not
separable from the state of the other distant particle. Non-
separability here implies non-local influence, or simple non-
locality. The attempt to claim that non-separability does not
imply non-locality is mere verbal gymnastics, with no physical
content.
The singlet state does not describe one pair, but an infinity of
pairs, having spin (say) in all directions, but correlated in all
the case verifiable by Bob and Alice when they can interact. I
would say.
That is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Only one pair
is necessary. You are confusing 'pairs' with the rotational symmetry
of the singlet state, and that is your continuing egregious error.
I beg to differ on this. Not reading the singlet state in that way is
what makes you believe (egregiously?) in action at a distance, which
honestly is close to non-sense to me.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
