Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story.

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE


> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 7.00 Brent Meeker  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/23/2018 6:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > First Principles, the tensor product can be used to describe the 
> composite system. It's virtually impossible to find an explanation from First 
> Principles. AG
> > 
> > > It's because the two systems are assumed independent, so every 
> > combination of variable values, one system A and one from system B and 
> > occur...which it the definition of a tensor product.
> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/23/2018 6:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*First Principles, the tensor product can be used to describe the 
composite system. It's virtually impossible to find an explanation 
from First Principles. AG*


It's because the two systems are assumed independent, so every 
combination of variable values, one system A and one from system B and 
occur...which it the definition of a tensor product.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:24:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: 
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:14:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:54:15 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> From: 
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>
 On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> From: 
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. 
>>> Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with 
>>> the 
>>> fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
>>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
>>> with this FACT? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts 
>>> that I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local 
>>> is a 
>>> fact that you just have to come to terms with.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some 
>> sense is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this 
>> case 
>> a key fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact 
>> that we see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially 
>> separated 
>> -- invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of 
> QM, how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a 
> superposition of tensor product states? TIA AG *
>

 *What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the 
 operator correspondence with observables. AG *

>>>
>>> *I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the 
>>> state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the states 
>>> which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why 
>>> are these states tensor product states? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to 
>>> go and look up a text book.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> *Recall when I asked whether entanglement necessarily implies non 
>> locality. You replied "not necessarily" and gave the classical example of 
>> elastic scattering of billiard balls where the momentum of its constituents 
>> and the whole system is known exactly. No uncertainty. In the wf for the 
>> singlet system you assume a definite net spin angular momentum, zero. How 
>> can you treat the singlet system quantum mechanically and at the same time 
>> assume you know its spin momentum exactly? Do you think this question could 
>> be answered in a text book? How could I even pose it to an inert, non 
>> responsive medium? AG *
>>
>
> *I just took a quick look at chapter 15, section 4 of Merzbacher, Quantum 
> Mechanics (Third Edition). The tensor equation can't be copied. It appears 
> in the blank lines below. Immediately you can see the problem with this 
> kind of treatment. It doesn't explain WHY, from First Principles, the 
> tensor product can be used to describe the composite system. It's virtually 
> impossible to find an explanation from First Principles. AG*
>
>
>  4. Quantum Dynamics in Direct Product Spaces and Multiparticle Systems. 
> Often the state vector space of a system can be regarded as the direct, 
> outer, or tensor product of vector spaces for simpler subsystems. The 
> direct product space is formed from two independent unrelated vector spaces 
> that are respectively spanned by the basis vectors /A;) and I B;) by 
> constructing the basis vectors 
>
> Although the symbol @ is the accepted mathematical notation for the direct 
> product of state vectors, it is usually dispensed with in the physics 
> literature, and we adopt this practice when it is unlikely to lead to 
> misunderstandings. If n1 and n2 are the dimensions of the two factor 
> spaces, the product space has dimension nl X n2. This idea is easily 
> extended to the construction of direct product spaces from three or more 
> simple spaces.
>
>
> Quite right. And what else are you going to use  for many-particle systems 
> that have independent Hilbert spaces -- you multiply them together, of 
> course.
>
> Bruce
>

Is this what you would characterize as a rigorous analysis? I can think of 
other alternatives. The answer has to be from First Principles or it's just 
hand waving. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are 

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: >
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:14:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:



On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:54:15 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce
wrote:

From: 


On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC,
Bruce wrote:

From: 


Let's agree that electrons A and B form a
singlet entangled system. Let's further
agree that they are non separable. What do
you do with the fact that when their spins
are measured, they ARE in different spatial
locations, not even space separated in Bell
experiments. How do we deal with this FACT? AG


What do you want me to do with the fact? I
learn to live with facts that I can't do
anything about. The fact that the system is
non-local is a fact that you just have to
come to terms with.

Bruce


*ISTM that when you have a theory that seems
correct and in some sense is well tested, but
there are facts which contradict it, in this
case a key fact right in front of your nose
which contradicts it -- the fact that we see as
plain as daylight that the subsystems as
spatially separated -- invariably the theory
must be wrong. AG*


I wish you luck with your project to prove
quantum mechanics wrong.

Bruce


*Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from
the postulates of QM, how do you justify writing the
wf of the singlet state as a superposition of tensor
product states? TIA AG *


*What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule.
It's not the operator correspondence with observables. AG *


*I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle;
that the state vector of the singlet state is a linear
combination of the states which are members of the
corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why are these
states tensor product states? AG*


Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest
thing is to go and look up a text book.

Bruce


*Recall when I asked whether entanglement necessarily implies non
locality. You replied "not necessarily" and gave the classical
example of elastic scattering of billiard balls where the momentum
of its constituents and the whole system is known exactly. No
uncertainty. In the wf for the singlet system you assume a
definite net spin angular momentum, zero. How can you treat the
singlet system quantum mechanically and at the same time assume
you know its spin momentum exactly? Do you think this question
could be answered in a text book? How could I even pose it to an
inert, non responsive medium? AG *


*I just took a quick look at chapter 15, section 4 of Merzbacher, 
Quantum Mechanics (Third Edition). The tensor equation can't be 
copied. It appears in the blank lines below. Immediately you can see 
the problem with this kind of treatment. It doesn't explain WHY, from 
First Principles, the tensor product can be used to describe the 
composite system. It's virtually impossible to find an explanation 
from First Principles. AG*



 4. Quantum Dynamics in Direct Product Spaces and Multiparticle 
Systems. Often the state vector space of a system can be regarded as 
the direct, outer, or tensor product of vector spaces for simpler 
subsystems. The direct product space is formed from two independent 
unrelated vector spaces that are respectively spanned by the basis 
vectors /A;) and I B;) by constructing the basis vectors


Although the symbol @ is the accepted mathematical notation for the 
direct product of state vectors, it is usually dispensed with in the 
physics literature, and we adopt this practice when it is unlikely to 
lead to misunderstandings. If n1 and n2 are the dimensions of the two 
factor spaces, the product space has dimension nl X n2. This idea is 
easily extended to the construction of direct product spaces from 
three or more simple spaces.


Quite right. And what else are 

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:14:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:54:15 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 



 On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>
> From: 
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. 
>> Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the 
>> fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
>> with this FACT? AG
>>
>>
>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts 
>> that I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is 
>> a 
>> fact that you just have to come to terms with.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense 
> is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a 
> key 
> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- 
> invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*
>
>
> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.
>
> Bruce
>

 *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of 
 QM, how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a 
 superposition of tensor product states? TIA AG *

>>>
>>> *What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the 
>>> operator correspondence with observables. AG *
>>>
>>
>> *I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the 
>> state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the states 
>> which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why 
>> are these states tensor product states? AG*
>>
>>
>> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to 
>> go and look up a text book.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *Recall when I asked whether entanglement necessarily implies non 
> locality. You replied "not necessarily" and gave the classical example of 
> elastic scattering of billiard balls where the momentum of its constituents 
> and the whole system is known exactly. No uncertainty. In the wf for the 
> singlet system you assume a definite net spin angular momentum, zero. How 
> can you treat the singlet system quantum mechanically and at the same time 
> assume you know its spin momentum exactly? Do you think this question could 
> be answered in a text book? How could I even pose it to an inert, non 
> responsive medium? AG *
>

*I just took a quick look at chapter 15, section 4 of Merzbacher, Quantum 
Mechanics (Third Edition). The tensor equation can't be copied. It appears 
in the blank lines below. Immediately you can see the problem with this 
kind of treatment. It doesn't explain WHY, from First Principles, the 
tensor product can be used to describe the composite system. It's virtually 
impossible to find an explanation from First Principles. AG*


 4. Quantum Dynamics in Direct Product Spaces and Multiparticle Systems. 
Often the state vector space of a system can be regarded as the direct, 
outer, or tensor product of vector spaces for simpler subsystems. The 
direct product space is formed from two independent unrelated vector spaces 
that are respectively spanned by the basis vectors /A;) and I B;) by 
constructing the basis vectors 

Although the symbol @ is the accepted mathematical notation for the direct 
product of state vectors, it is usually dispensed with in the physics 
literature, and we adopt this practice when it is unlikely to lead to 
misunderstandings. If n1 and n2 are the dimensions of the two factor 
spaces, the product space has dimension nl X n2. This idea is easily 
extended to the construction of direct product spaces from three or more 
simple spaces. 

>   
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:54:15 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: 
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 

 From: 


 On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>
> From: 
>
>
> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. 
> Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the 
> fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
> with this FACT? AG
>
>
> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts 
> that I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is 
> a 
> fact that you just have to come to terms with.
>
> Bruce
>

 *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense 
 is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a 
 key 
 fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
 see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- 
 invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*


 I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of 
>>> QM, how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a 
>>> superposition of tensor product states? TIA AG *
>>>
>>
>> *What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the 
>> operator correspondence with observables. AG *
>>
>
> *I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the 
> state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the states 
> which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why 
> are these states tensor product states? AG*
>
>
> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to go 
> and look up a text book.
>
> Bruce
>

*Recall when I asked whether entanglement necessarily implies non locality. 
You replied "not necessarily" and gave the classical example of elastic 
scattering of billiard balls where the momentum of its constituents and the 
whole system is known exactly. No uncertainty. In the wf for the singlet 
system you assume a definite net spin angular momentum, zero. How can you 
treat the singlet system quantum mechanically and at the same time assume 
you know its spin momentum exactly? Do you think this question could be 
answered in a text book? How could I even pose it to an inert, non 
responsive medium? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: >
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet
entangled system. Let's further agree that they are
non separable. What do you do with the fact that
when their spins are measured, they ARE in different
spatial locations, not even space separated in Bell
experiments. How do we deal with this FACT? AG


What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to
live with facts that I can't do anything about. The
fact that the system is non-local is a fact that you
just have to come to terms with.

Bruce


*ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and
in some sense is well tested, but there are facts which
contradict it, in this case a key fact right in front of
your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we see as
plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially
separated -- invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*


I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum
mechanics wrong.

Bruce


*Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the
postulates of QM, how do you justify writing the wf of the
singlet state as a superposition of tensor product states? TIA
AG *


*What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not
the operator correspondence with observables. AG *


*I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the 
state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the 
states which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the 
system. But why are these states tensor product states? AG*


Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to 
go and look up a text book.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> From: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 

 From: 


 On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>
>
> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", 
> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer 
> of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say 
> that 
> there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if 
> "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by 
> particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* 
> explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality 
> can 
> never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is 
> such 
> that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically 
> changes 
> the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other 
> side 
> as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended 
> physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the 
> best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be 
> no 
> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the 
> non-separable 
> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a 
> distance".
>
> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is 
> just the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying 
> to "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no 
> deeper 
> explanation.
>
> Bruce
>

 Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. 
 Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the 
 fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
 locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
 with this FACT? AG


 What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts 
 that I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a 
 fact that you just have to come to terms with.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense 
>>> is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key 
>>> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
>>> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- 
>>> invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of QM, 
>> how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a superposition 
>> of tensor product states? TIA AG *
>>
>
> *What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the 
> operator correspondence with observables. AG *
>

*I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the 
state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the states 
which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why 
are these states tensor product states? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> From: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 


 For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", 
 where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer 
 of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say 
 that 
 there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if 
 "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by 
 particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* 
 explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality can 
 never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is 
 such 
 that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically 
 changes 
 the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other 
 side 
 as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended 
 physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the 
 best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be 
 no 
 "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable 
 state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a 
 distance".

 I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just 
 the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to 
 "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper 
 explanation.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. 
>>> Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the 
>>> fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
>>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
>>> with this FACT? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts that 
>>> I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a fact 
>>> that you just have to come to terms with.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense is 
>> well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key 
>> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
>> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- 
>> invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of QM, 
> how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a superposition 
> of tensor product states? TIA AG *
>

*What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the 
operator correspondence with observables. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Cohen books

[Brent Meeker]

This one?
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1saLownCh434Xogtedn-C0AJ2J4pur58HguQhGPLOECB30-9RsiZtEwuiktUZrXPgBfJYfzc0wHK72MgQP1I0DFWcUtKDHjH-DNxGGVfTBk_dLAfb_YwVC1SUzQs-ZIPywYeKSCRavyN31i1WkRLTXDfCRlsuSksLCBMgWpXmmuaSUllvA46HYHDshGl9kfv4DZ8Yk9S6OhHnVd432zRoXa8FuA0LLG51Sk7AtTqOi3yrhltfeWglBvjcrQzjI4exGevPrzmn-A0-X7QUnR5T8g/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.de%2FEquations-God-Mathematics-Victorian-Hopkins-ebook%2Fdp%2FB001SN8GB8%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1524299661%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3DEquations%2Bfrom%2BGod%253A%2BPure%2BMathematics%2Band%2BVictorian%2BFaith%2B%2528Johns%2BHopkins%2BStudies%2Bin%2Bthe%2BHistory%2Bof%2BMathematics%2529


I got the message “dangerous page”.

The reference is:

Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian
Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Not to confuse with

Cohen E. Daniel, 1987, Computability and Logic, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

Which is one of the best book to introduce mathematical logic to
mathematicians or scientists. (For non-mathematicians, or scientists who
have problem in math, Martin Davis’ book is probably easier).

Don’t hesitate to download both of them.


I also get a malware warning.  Do you know a link to downloadable copies?

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> *The above is about how Bruno keeps answering your questions, and then
> you either pretend that he didn't*


Like the time just a few days ago when Bruno said all my objections were
already answered in a post that could be "easily" found in the archives,
and when I asked exactly where it was he said he couldn't be expected to
find it because he has sent thousands of posts?

> *or make fun of his mode of expression, with your "pee pees" and
> "homemade terms"*

That is not Ad Hominem that is a statement of fact, his pee pee notation
with its circular definitions and personal pronouns with no unique referent
is homemade, and so are his endless acronyms that he seems to expect any
scientifically literate person should know when in fact they are seen on
this very tiny list and nowhere else on the planet. Why would somebody who
had a clear idea that was very good muddy things up by doing that? They
wouldn't, therefore the idea must not be clear and it must not be very
good.

> > *You frequently brag about not reading after the first line,*

If you find a blunder in a proof only a fool would keep reading because a
proof builds on what comes before so everything after that point is pure
nonsense.  As for bragging,... I don't claim to be a genius but I do claim
not to be a fool.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> *​*
> *an action oat a distance, which violates already special relativity.*


Any sort of action at a distance faster than the speed of light does indeed
violate SPECIAL relativity, but that was not the last word Einstein had to
say on the subject, that came several years later with his greatest
discovery GENERAL relativity which says it is only information that can not
move faster than light. Weird quantum correlation's travel faster than
light but you can't send a message with that, the space between our galaxy
another can expand faster than light too but you can't use that to send a
message either. Actually instead of saying "the speed of light" you could
say "the speed of causality", its the same speed.

John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: 
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", 
>>> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer 
>>> of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that 
>>> there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if 
>>> "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by 
>>> particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* 
>>> explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality can 
>>> never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is such 
>>> that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically changes 
>>> the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other side 
>>> as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended 
>>> physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the 
>>> best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no 
>>> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable 
>>> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a 
>>> distance".
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just 
>>> the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to 
>>> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper 
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. Let's 
>> further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the fact 
>> that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
>> with this FACT? AG
>>
>>
>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts that 
>> I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a fact 
>> that you just have to come to terms with.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense is 
> well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key 
> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- 
> invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*
>
>
> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.
>
> Bruce
>

*Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of QM, 
how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a superposition 
of tensor product states? TIA 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* >
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker > wrote:



On 4/22/2018 6:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >


On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are
space-separated, I cannot even makes sense of how you can
measure correlations, given that once they are separated,
whatever result they got, will be shared with different Alice
and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can define
what could be an action at a distance in the quantum formalism.
The notion does not even makes sense when we assume special
relativity. The only reason to believe this is the habit to
think that there is only one bob and one Alice, which makes no
sense once separated, unless they are correlated with a third
observer, but then, again by looking at the wave without
collapse, there will be no action at a distance. The no
locality is only an appearance due to the fact that we belong
to infinities of histories, and cannot known which one we are in.

It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance".  The theory 
you are depending on for these pronouncements entails that, on a MW 
picture, some of the possible worlds have probabilities that go to 
zero as a result of an interaction at Alice or at Bob.  So an 
interaction at one of them changes the probabilities at the other.


For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a 
distance", where he interprets that to mean that there is some 
superluminal transfer of information, 


I prefer to distinguish non-locality (inseparability), action at a 
distance, and transfer of information at a distance. Even in a 
mono-universe theory, the action at a distance exists (by EPR-BELL) 
but cannot be used to transfer information. But in the multiverse, we 
have the inseparability, but we don’t have any action-at-a-distance. 
At least that is what I am arguing for.


That is what you are arguing for. But you have not as yet put forward 
any clear and convincing argument that you can succeed in your search 
for such a theory. You have to take the accepted formalism for the 
singlet state and develop a unitary theory that avoids non-locality. I 
have recently reproduced the argument given by several MWI advocates, 
and have shown that it does not avoid the non-locality intrinsic to the 
non-separability of the singlet state wave function. Your challenge is 
to start from the same state and apply unitary evolution to reach a 
different conclusion.


by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that there is 
no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if 
"non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by 
particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* 
explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So 
non-locality can never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean 
that the theory is such that the state is not separable, and 
changing one end automatically changes the other, just as pushing 
one side of a billiard ball moves the other side as well. (Ignoring 
the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended physical 
objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the best 
I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be 
no "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the 
non-separable state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather 
than "action at a distance".


I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is 
just the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. 
Trying to "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because 
there is no deeper explanation.


Of course, I do believe that there is a deeper and simpler 
explanation. QM seems very plausibly be only how the numbers can 
structured arithmetic from their indexical internal points of view. It 
is the canonical logic, imposed by incompleteness, on what is 
observable ([]p & <>t (& p)) for them.


Your own versions of mechanism and/or "comp" do not work here, because 
you have claimed that MWI itself, within the standard formulae of 
quantum theory, obviates non-locality. You have to reconcile the 
acknowledged non-separability with a local explanation. This, I contend, 
is impossible. Prove me wrong.



I think one way to look at it is, if a hidden variable explanation 
requires that the hidden variable be FTL, then the phenomenon is 
non-local.


If find it hard to see how Bruno can say whether or not his theory is 
non-local since he has not derived any concept of space, time, and a 
Lorentz metric.  I would think that would be a minimum before you 
could claim a theory had not FTL signaling.



I was not reasoning in any theory. I was just saying that 

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Telmo Menezes]

On 22 April 2018 at 19:06, John Clark  wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>  Maybe I've got my Latin wrong, please explain to me again what "ad
>>> >> hominem" means.
>>
>>
>> > It means to use personal attacks against the author of an argument
>> > instead of addressing the substance of the argument.
>
> Like this?
>
> "I think you make a basic logic mistake. It is true that some brilliant
> people are assholes, but being an asshole does not make you brilliant.”

No. "Ad Hominem" refers to ignoring an argument and instead going for
the personal attack. I never ignored your arguments, I replied to all
of them. The above is about how Bruno keeps answering your questions,
and then you either pretend that he didn't or make fun of his mode of
expression, with your "pee pees" and "homemade terms" and all the
rest. You frequently brag about not reading after the first line, and
then you spare no unfounded criticism. You lie frequently about him
not answering you, as Quentin pointed out before. My problem with you
is not that you disagree with me, it's that you sabotage communication
on purpose.

> I have never called anybody on this list an asshole, and before the era of
> Donald Trump I very rarely used that word in any context even in private
> conversations. It’s true I did use some colorful language in reference to
> Quentin but only after he called me a liar nearly every day for the better
> part of a year.

For me it took seven years of witnessing your bully strategies.

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

[Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming unusable]

On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>
>
> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will
> influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second
> God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches
> which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being
> burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological
> secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>
> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of
> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of
> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we
> found the second lost part!).
>
> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted,
> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi
> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived
> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible
> Enlightenment.
>
> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to
> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the
> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method
> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and
> I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>
> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created
> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will
> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid
> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking
> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of
> research.
>
>
>
>
> I believe the christian
> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
>
> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of
> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive
> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that
> class. No universal machine!
>
>
> I agree, but it is sold as one.
>
>
>
> Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my
> country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is
> weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who
> just want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium.
>
>
>
>
> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>
> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the
> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the
> eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic
> and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist
> theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect
> to burning at stake.
>
> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent
> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>
>
>
>
> Max Weber made a
> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
> and so on.
>
>
> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was
> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole
> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the
> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of
> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of
> the notion of “Whole”.
>
> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the
> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus
> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in
> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong
> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after
> I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed
> by Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative
> hypothesis” from the Parmenides.
>
>
> Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those
> cannot be seen in the light of the culture 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 21 April 2018 at 22:38, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
>>> "theos"=god.
>>> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the
>>> gods.
>>> From
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on
>>> god"
>>> in
>>> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
>>> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike
>>> and
>>> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics,
>>> which,
>>> for
>>> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
>>
>> "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>
>
> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e.
> theology.

 Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
 cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
 tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
 through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
 a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
>>> religions are developed as instruments of social control.
>>
>> You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
>> great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
>> example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
>> Science can help
>> relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
>> angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
>> meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
>> these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
>> not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
>> distilled wisdom of our ancestors.
>>
>>> Originally they
>>> were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents
>>> of
>>> social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
>>> Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the
>>> gods
>>> and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek
>>> religion,
>>> derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
>>> agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
>>> conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
>>> mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
>>> war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all
>>> the
>>> way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".
>>
>>
>> The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
>> the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
>> proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
>> believes that people should be geographically organized according to
>> the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
>> that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
>> social construct.
>
>
> And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free press.
> So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is just to
> choose sides?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. My point is that science is
not enough to build a culture and a civilization, and that when one
tries to reduce everything to science, myth still shows up and
contaminates science itself. Both sides of the above equation are
crazy and destructive.

>>
 Max Weber made a
 better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
 interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
 characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
 and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
 were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica
>>> of
>>> Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".
>>
>> You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
>> that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
>> in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.
>
>
> A religious myth is only 

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 01:21, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 6:42 PM, smitra  > wrote:
> 
> >​ ​In the MWI it is just like drawing balls from a box containing a white 
> >and a black ball. If the two balls are sent to a distant location to Alice 
> >and Bob, and Alice performs her measurement she'll know what Bob will find. 
> >Here too there are two possibilities for Alice and Bob, yet two of the four 
> >= 2 times 2 possibilities are excluded. This is a non-local effect, but an 
> >entirely trivial one that is the result of a local common cause effect.
> 
> 
> That's the wrong analogy to highlight quantum weirdness, for a a better one 
> you would would need 3 complementary properties not just 1, so in addition to 
> white/black lets have heavy/light and radioactive/nonradioactive.
> ​
> With 3 complementary attributes you'd have 8 different types of balls:
> 
> 1) Black heavy radioactive
> 2) Black light radioactive
> 3) Black heavy non-radioactive
> 4) Black light non-radioactive
> 5) White heavy radioactive
> 6) White light radioactive
> 7) White heavy non-radioactive
> 8) White light non-radioactive
> 
> In secret and at random 2 balls are chosen and put in two boxes and mailed in 
> opposite directions a very long way apart. You get one box and you can X ray 
> your package to learn if it is black or white, or you can weigh it to learn 
> if it is heavy or light or you can use a geiger counter on it to learn if is 
> radioactive or nonradioactive. But you can only use one test.
> 
> So if you X ray your package and find that it is black you'd expect that on 
> average there would be 2 chances in 8 (1 in 4) that the other package 
> contains a heavy ball; it could be white heavy and radioactive or black heavy 
> and non-radioactive. However when this Quantum Mechanical experiment is 
> actually performed it is found that when it is weighed on average the 
> probability the other package is heavy is not 1 chance in 4 but is in fact 1 
> chance in 3. Bell's inequality says if things work according to clasical 
> physics and common sense

Common sense implies here “mono-universe”, I guess.


> then it must be 1/4 or smaller, but it isn't, it's 1/3. The experiment 
> produces a correlation between the attributes that is greater than classical 
> physics expected, but it is exactly what quantum mechanics predicts.
> 
> Thus either things are either non local and somehow X raying your package 
> changes the attributes of the other package faster than light, or things are 
> not realistic

In the sense that all outcomes exists, which is of course the MW, which is 
against common sense, but less than an action oat a distance, which violates 
already special relativity.

Bruno

> and so despite the name neither box can be prepackaged, that is to say 
> neither package has any attributes at all until you X ray it or weigh it or 
> check it with a Geiger-counter.
> 
> ​ ​John K Clark
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: >


On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:


For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a
distance", where he interprets that to mean that there is
some superluminal transfer of information, by tachyons or
some such. And he is quite right to say that there is no such
interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if
"non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of
information, by particles or something else, then that would
be giving a *local* explanation of non-locality, which is a
contradiction. So non-locality can never mean "action at a
distance", it can only mean that the theory is such that the
state is not separable, and changing one end automatically
changes the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard
ball moves the other side as well. (Ignoring the problems of
a relativistic explanation of extended physical objects. This
is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the best I can
think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be
no "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in
the non-separable state. That is why we call it
"non-locality" rather than "action at a distance".

I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but
that is just the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to
live with it. Trying to "explain" this fact further is bound
to fail, because there is no deeper explanation.

Bruce


Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled
system. Let's further agree that they are non separable. What do
you do with the fact that when their spins are measured, they ARE
in different spatial locations, not even space separated in Bell
experiments. How do we deal with this FACT? AG


What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with
facts that I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is
non-local is a fact that you just have to come to terms with.

Bruce


*ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense 
is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case 
a key fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the 
fact that we see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially 
separated -- invariably the theory must be wrong. AG*


I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 6:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> From: Brent Meeker >
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are space-separated, I 
>>> cannot even makes sense of how you can measure correlations, given that 
>>> once they are separated, whatever result they got, will be shared with 
>>> different Alice and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can 
>>> define what could be an action at a distance in the quantum formalism. The 
>>> notion does not even makes sense when we assume special relativity. The 
>>> only reason to believe this is the habit to think that there is only one 
>>> bob and one Alice, which makes no sense once separated, unless they are 
>>> correlated with a third observer, but then, again by looking at the wave 
>>> without collapse, there will be no action at a distance. The no locality is 
>>> only an appearance due to the fact that we belong to infinities of 
>>> histories, and cannot known which one we are in.
>>> 
>>> It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance".  The theory you are 
>>> depending on for these pronouncements entails that, on a MW picture, some 
>>> of the possible worlds have probabilities that go to zero as a result of an 
>>> interaction at Alice or at Bob.  So an interaction at one of them changes 
>>> the probabilities at the other.
>> 
>> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", where 
>> he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer of 
>> information,

I prefer to distinguish non-locality (inseparability), action at a distance, 
and transfer of information at a distance. Even in a mono-universe theory, the 
action at a distance exists (by EPR-BELL) but cannot be used to transfer 
information. But in the multiverse, we have the inseparability, but we don’t 
have any action-at-a-distance. At least that is what I am arguing for. 



>> by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that there is no such 
>> interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if "non-locality" meant 
>> some superluminal transfer of information, by particles or something else, 
>> then that would be giving a *local* explanation of non-locality, which is a 
>> contradiction. So non-locality can never mean "action at a distance", it can 
>> only mean that the theory is such that the state is not separable, and 
>> changing one end automatically changes the other, just as pushing one side 
>> of a billiard ball moves the other side as well. (Ignoring the problems of a 
>> relativistic explanation of extended physical objects. This is not a 
>> particularly good analogy, but it is the best I can think of at short 
>> notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no "mechanical" explanation of 
>> the non-locality inherent in the non-separable state. That is why we call it 
>> "non-locality" rather than "action at a distance".
>> 
>> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just the 
>> nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to 
>> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper 
>> explanation.

Of course, I do believe that there is a deeper and simpler explanation. QM 
seems very plausibly be only how the numbers can structured arithmetic from 
their indexical internal points of view. It is the canonical logic, imposed by 
incompleteness, on what is observable ([]p & <>t (& p)) for them.


> 
> I think one way to look at it is, if a hidden variable explanation requires 
> that the hidden variable be FTL, then the phenomenon is non-local.
> 
> If find it hard to see how Bruno can say whether or not his theory is 
> non-local since he has not derived any concept of space, time, and a Lorentz 
> metric.  I would think that would be a minimum before you could claim a 
> theory had not FTL signaling.


I was not reasoning in any theory. I was just saying that EPR-BELL entails 
non-locality only in hidden variable theories in a mono-universe theory, but 
that deriving action-at-a-distance, from EPR-BELL in one branch of the 
multiverse is not valid (without assuming Mechanism). It is pure applied logic.

Of course, all physical theories which assumes any number of universe different 
from zero are wrong, so even Everett is wrong, but that is another chapter of 
metaphysics, and I am not there in this discussion in physics (not to confuse 
with metaphysics unless we put the Aristotelian metaphysics in the hypothesis, 
which many do that implicitly.

Bruno


> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> 

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:15:16 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", 
>>> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer 
>>> of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that 
>>> there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if 
>>> "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by 
>>> particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* 
>>> explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality can 
>>> never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is such 
>>> that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically changes 
>>> the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other side 
>>> as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended 
>>> physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the 
>>> best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no 
>>> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable 
>>> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a 
>>> distance".
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just 
>>> the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to 
>>> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper 
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. Let's 
>> further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the fact 
>> that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial 
>> locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal 
>> with this FACT? AG
>>
>>
>> What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts that 
>> I can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a fact 
>> that you just have to come to terms with.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
Typo corrected below in CAPS: 

>
> *ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense is 
> well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key 
> fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we 
> see as plain as daylight that the subsystems ARE spatially separated -- 
> invariably the theory must be wrong. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.