On 22-11-2024 06:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/21/2024 8:28 PM, smitra wrote:
On 21-11-2024 23:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/21/2024 5:12 AM, smitra wrote:
On 18-11-2024 07:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 4:17 PM PGC <[email protected]>
wrote:
Your response presents strong points but contains some
redundancies
and overlapping arguments. Here's a revised version with greater
focus, while maintaining the original’s precision and accuracy:
-------------------------
Bruce, let’s directly address the epistemic interpretation of the
wavefunction. While this view neatly avoids ontological
commitments
and sidesteps issues like FTL action, it doesn’t fully account for
experimentally observed phenomena such as violations of Bell’s
inequalities.
The violation of Bell inequalities implies non-locality, and the
epistemic interpretation of the wave function is perfectly
compatible
with non-locality.
The violation of Bell's inequalities does not imply non-locality. In
fact, the violation of Bell's inequality is a prediction of QM which
when describing the dynamics with a physical Hamiltonian, is a
manifestly local theory.
But it has a state which shares the polarization of the two
particles,
|x1 x2>+|y1 y2> The particles are at different places when they are
measured but are sharing a variable...that's the non-locality. That's
why Bell's theorem can't be violated by a shared hidden variable.
One can create such non-local states but that doesn't require anything
non-local in the dynamical laws, and indeed, the known dynamical laws
are of a local nature. So, all the non-local effects are due to common
cause effects.
That's what is ruled out by violation of Bell's inequality.
Bells' theorem doesn't apply to QM, it's a theorem about deterministic
hidden variable theories that says that certain correlations like some
of those of QM cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory.
The relevance of Bell's theorem to QM is only that it rules out that if
QM is not fundamental and has an underlying hidden variable theory, then
that hidden variable theory cannot be local.
So, if we then assume that QM is fundamental, then there is no objection
against QM being local. Getting to non-local states via local dynamics
isn't a problem as this is routinely done in experiments where entangled
spin pairs are created. Nothing non-local goes on as far as the dynamics
is concerned in such experiments.
Saibal
Brent
--
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/2bdc25cc696e765cb92fde3f501a230d%40zonnet.nl.
