On 10-04-2022 06:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 2:13 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 10-04-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:14 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 09-04-2022 06:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous
local
many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very
well to
claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid
giving the required local account of the correlations. In a
sense,
Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the
correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is
over.
We start at t = 0 with everything ready to start creating the
entangled
pairs of spins. Alice and Bob will make their way tki distant
locations
and perform measurements on their spins, then return to meet each
other
and compute the correlations using the data in their logbooks.
The final
results will be published at time T. The local account that
describes
the entire process is formally given by:
|final state> = exp[-i H t/hbar]|initial state>
where H is the local Standard Model Hamiltonian.
Ha, Ha. Ha fucking Ha! What a comedian!
Teacher says: "Show your working." 0/10
If the teacher gives zero points for the exercise then that can
implies
that the problem the student was supposed to solve was solvable.
You really are naive!
So, what I'm saying is correct, the fact that physics is local is
not
under dispute in physics.
Of course it is under dispute. Many people now agree that entanglement
is essentially non-local. And if you consider holography, then that is
the ultimate non-local physics.
An entangled state has non-local properties just like if Alice and Bob
where to read the same copies of a book there would be a non-local
correlation in what they read. What matters is that the dynamics that
describes such processes is local.
There exists a local Hamiltonian that
generates the time evolution operator. You'll win a Noble prize if
you
can demonstrate that this is not the case. So, the burden of proof
is on
you to show where what is supposed to be established physics, is
wrong.
If you consider only local interactions, you have a local Hamiltonian.
But the state we are considering here is not local, so your precious
local dynamics are not going to be sufficient. Prove that there is a
local state that is non-separable, then I might listen. Entangled
states are non-separable, hence non-local.
You still haven't given the working for your fabulous demonstration
above.......
The Standard Model Hamiltonian is manifestly local. So, why the
excitement about the mass of the W-boson potentially proving that the
Standard Model may not be correct, if Bruce Kellett proved it wrong
years ago?
Saibal
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTOVcPR%2B8jgyTLy4BdJJeHw3eWHiLMT%2B_X-0hO8w9kEbg%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTOVcPR%2B8jgyTLy4BdJJeHw3eWHiLMT%2B_X-0hO8w9kEbg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9515fe0feef234dfd50d7fa97dcb100c%40zonnet.nl.
