On 11/7/2024 2:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


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 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*


All I am asking is what does an "effect" consist of? Many physicists think of instantaneous action at a distance. AG
No, you're claiming it doesn't make sense to have an effect but not send information.  If you looked at the vu-graph I posted it's easy to see that each end gets random results and the effect is only seen when they are compared.

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/4aae765f-2739-4962-9738-ac2cdc9e7f6fn%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4aae765f-2739-4962-9738-ac2cdc9e7f6fn%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/86708a83-f458-4be0-aff8-fe2b0776f408%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to