On 11/6/2024 1:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> wrote:
/> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were
very certain. /
*I asserted no such thing!*
*I said _IF_ quantum mechanics is local and deterministic
then it can't be realistic. And Many Worlds is local and
deterministic but not realistic. *
*
*
*And I said _IF_ quantum mechanicsis realistic and
deterministic then it can't be local.And pilot wave
theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. *
*
*
*And I said _IF_ quantum mechanics is realistic and local
then it can't be deterministic. And objective collapse is
realistic and local but not deterministic. *
*
*
*And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is
violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I
prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right. *
*
*
*You can't be _realistic_ and _local_ and _deterministic_
and still be compatible with the violation of Bell's
Inequality, something's gotta give. *
*
*
*Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know,
Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third
favorite is "other", and my fourth favorite is pilot
wave theory. But of course my favorites and the
universe's favorites may not be the same thing. *
/> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest
instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests
that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG /
*Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to
quantum mechanics, but thatfact doesn't enable you to
send information faster than light,so it's of no help in
trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated. *
*Because information can't be sent, some people say there is
instantaneous influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM
is non-local. AG*
**
*Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously,
apparently entangled pairs can. *
*They can have an effect, but they can't send information.*
*
*
*An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't
make sense. AG*
*I can only give you an argument. I can't understand it for you.
Brent**
*
* There is correlation which you probably think means one can
send information, but remember QM results are random. You can't
control your end of the entangled pair and so you can't send a
message. The correlation is only noticed when you bring two sets
of measurements together. Here's what a Bell's test experiment
looks like that won the Nobel prize for showing that QM
correlation is stronger than can be explained classically:
See how each record at A and at B are random. So no signal can be
sent.
Brent
*
*IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? 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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%40googlegroups.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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed4398c-bd8d-4fc8-a167-656b7e1bc389%40gmail.com.
