On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: <agrays...@gmail.com> >> >> >> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: <agrays...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", >>>> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer >>>> of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say >>>> that >>>> there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if >>>> "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by >>>> particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* >>>> explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality can >>>> never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is >>>> such >>>> that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically >>>> changes >>>> the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other >>>> side >>>> as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended >>>> physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the >>>> best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be >>>> no >>>> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable >>>> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a >>>> distance". >>>> >>>> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just >>>> the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to >>>> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper >>>> explanation. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. >>> Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the >>> fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial >>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal >>> with this FACT? AG >>> >>> >>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts that >>> I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a fact >>> that you just have to come to terms with. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense is >> well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key >> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we >> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- >> invariably the theory must be wrong. AG* >> >> >> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong. >> >> Bruce >> > > *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of QM, > how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a superposition > of tensor product states? TIA AG * >
*What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the operator correspondence with observables. 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.
