On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
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 mechanics is 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 that fact 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* All I am asking is what does an "effect" consist of? Many physicists think of instantaneous action at a distance. AG * 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/4aae765f-2739-4962-9738-ac2cdc9e7f6fn%40googlegroups.com.
