On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: > > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > >>> > >>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > >>> > >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: > >>>> One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact > >>> that > >>>> the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. > >>> So, in > >>>> any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from > >>> only > >>>> the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects > >>> > >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it > >>> already > >>> refers to multiple points in 3space. > >>> > >>> Brent > >>> > >>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have > >>> multiple > >>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG > >> > >> The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial > >> coordinates. > >> > >> Brent > >> > >> OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG > >> > >> So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity > >> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the > >> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the > >> measurement is treated as Everett does. It still zeroes out cross > >> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the > >> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote > >> places. > >> > >> Brent > > > > That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the > > wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two > > particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was > > created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an > > ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is > > then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the > > entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put > > ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two > > particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the > > entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and > > Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at > > all. > > Sure it does. The state vector itself is a function of spacelike > separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal > components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality. > > Brent >
Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes instantaneous collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's inequality is, or must be violated? 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-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.
