Re: Entanglement

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:48:51 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: 
>
> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting 
> story. 
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>



 On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
 
  
 J. B. Kennedy  
 *Philosophy of Science * 62 
 (4):543-560 (1995) 
 Abstract 
 I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
 Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
 correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
 causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; 
 they 
 are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
 proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
 product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis 
 in 
 the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
 representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
 assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
 EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
 class of proofs considered 
  
 Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
 likely well worth it IMO. AG


 I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
 not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
 something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very 
 confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
>>> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
>>> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
>>> tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
>>> postulates of QM. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive everything from 
>>> a few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no the 
>>> other way around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor product 
>>> in quantum mechanics read this: 
>>>
>>>
>>> https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf
>>>
>>> Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. This looks good. AG 
>>
>  
> *I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent 
> me, but from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that 
> although he doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products 
> in quantum mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically 
> based, tensor products are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says 
> otherwise. AG* 
>

Tensor products are just ways states in two Hilbert spaces are tied to each 
other, which is what is meant by entanglement. It is just a sort of 
exterior product that ties states of one system with those of another 
system. There is nothing mysterious about this, and if one wanted to this 
could be done (rather inconveniently IMO) without tensor products.

LC 

-- 
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 4/24/2018 1:33 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:59:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 11:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC,
scerir wrote:

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

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE






  On the empirical foundations of the quantum
  no-signalling proofs
  



J. B. Kennedy

/Philosophy of Science
/ 62
(4):543-560 (1995)
Abstract
I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling
proofs (Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan
1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and Ross
1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show
that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for
transmitting signals, i.e., are not causal. First,
I show that these proofs can be mathematically
unified; they are disguised versions of a single
theorem. Second, I argue that these proofs are
circular.*The essential theorem relies upon the
tensor product representation for combined systems,
which has no physical basis in the von Neumann
axioms.* Historically, the construction of this
representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built
no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory.
Signalling between the wings of the EPR-Bell
experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out
empirically by the class of proofs considered


Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a
non-member, but very likely well worth it IMO. AG


I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy
who says something is not ruled out /*empirically*/
by some /*mathematical proofs*/, and says something
has no /*physical*/ basis in */axioms/*.   He seems
very confused about the difference between
mathematics and empiricism.

Brent


I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's
saying the tensor product states do not follow from the
axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even if wrong. But you
can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the
tensor product states follow from First Principles, that
is, from the postulates of QM. AG


Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive
everything from a few axioms.  The mathematics is
invented to describe the physics, no the other way
around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor
product in quantum mechanics read this:


https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf



Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.

Brent


Thanks. This looks good. AG

**
*I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf
scerir sent me, but from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he
seem to be saying that although he doesn't dispute the validity
and usefulness of tensor products in quantum mechanics, unlike
other quantum axioms which ARE empirically based, tensor products
are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says otherwise. AG*


Read this and then tell me what "empirically based" means


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2fb0/4475228ff385a44a16e3ba42b432d3bf5b17.pdf



As far as I know the only empirical basis for a theory is that it
always gives the right answer when empirically tested.  Kennedy
seems to have a strange concept of circular reasoning.  He says
that adopting an 

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:59:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2018 11:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: 
>
> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting 
> story. 
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>



 On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
 
  
 J. B. Kennedy  
 *Philosophy of Science * 62 
 (4):543-560 (1995) 
 Abstract 
 I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
 Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
 correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
 causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; 
 they 
 are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
 proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
 product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis 
 in 
 the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
 representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
 assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
 EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
 class of proofs considered 
  
 Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
 likely well worth it IMO. AG


 I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
 not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
 something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very 
 confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
>>> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
>>> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
>>> tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
>>> postulates of QM. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive everything from 
>>> a few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no the 
>>> other way around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor product 
>>> in quantum mechanics read this: 
>>>
>>>
>>> https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf
>>>
>>> Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. This looks good. AG 
>>
>  
> *I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent 
> me, but from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that 
> although he doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products 
> in quantum mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically 
> based, tensor products are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says 
> otherwise. AG*
>
>
> Read this and then tell me what "empirically based" means
>
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2fb0/4475228ff385a44a16e3ba42b432d3bf5b17.pdf
>
> As far as I know the only empirical basis for a theory is that it always 
> gives the right answer when empirically tested.  Kennedy seems to have a 
> strange concept of circular reasoning.  He says that adopting an equation 
> that implies no-signaling and then using it to prove quantum theory avoids 
> FTL signaling is circular.  He misses the point that the reason for 
> adopting the no-signaling is the empirical success of special relativity, 
> which would be violated by FTL signaling.
>
> Brent
>

For now I will just remark that "empirically based" means that the physical 
world suggests by its behavior the mathematics we need to describe it.  
E.g., the discrete spectra of the elements indicates that we need operators 
with discrete and real eigenvalues to reproduce the spectra. And I'm pretty 
sure that Schrodinger inferred his equation from real world observations. 
And so on. The tricky one I've never understood is the need for non 
commuting operators for position and momentum,. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything 

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/24/2018 11:48 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:

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

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE






  On the empirical foundations of the quantum
  no-signalling proofs
  



J. B. Kennedy 
/Philosophy of Science
/ 62
(4):543-560 (1995)
Abstract
I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs
(Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony
1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and
Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR
correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting
signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these
proofs can be mathematically unified; they are disguised
versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these
proofs are circular.*The essential theorem relies upon
the tensor product representation for combined systems,
which has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms.*
Historically, the construction of this representation
scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling
assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between
the wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is
not ruled out empirically by the class of proofs considered


Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a
non-member, but very likely well worth it IMO. AG


I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who
says something is not ruled out /*empirically*/ by some
/*mathematical proofs*/, and says something has no
/*physical*/ basis in */axioms/*.   He seems very
confused about the difference between mathematics and
empiricism.

Brent


I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying
the tensor product states do not follow from the axioms of
QM. Seems pretty clear even if wrong. But you can save me the
fee if you can clearly state how the tensor product states
follow from First Principles, that is, from the postulates of
QM. AG


Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive
everything from a few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to
describe the physics, no the other way around.  If you want to
understand the use of the tensor product in quantum mechanics
read this:


https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf



Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.

Brent


Thanks. This looks good. AG

**
*I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir 
sent me, but from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be 
saying that although he doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of 
tensor products in quantum mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms 
which ARE empirically based, tensor products are NOT empirically 
based. Perhaps your link says otherwise. AG*


Read this and then tell me what "empirically based" means

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2fb0/4475228ff385a44a16e3ba42b432d3bf5b17.pdf

As far as I know the only empirical basis for a theory is that it always 
gives the right answer when empirically tested.  Kennedy seems to have a 
strange concept of circular reasoning.  He says that adopting an 
equation that implies no-signaling and then using it to prove quantum 
theory avoids FTL signaling is circular.  He misses the point that the 
reason for adopting the no-signaling is the empirical success of special 
relativity, which would be violated by FTL signaling.


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 

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent me, but 
from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that although he 
doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products in quantum 
mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically based, tensor 
products are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says otherwise. AG

 

Chris Fuchs wrote 'Notes on a Paulian Idea: Foundational, Historical, Anecdotal 
and Forward-Looking Thoughts on the Quantum', 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105039 
In this paper he also says something about tensor products 'invented' (as for 
QM) by von Neumann and Weyl, and about Kennedy's paper. See page 276 and page 
449 (of pdf)

' https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=Christopher+A.+Fuchs 
https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=N.+David+Mermin

-- 
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

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 20.13 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:57:53 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).
> > 
> > You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
> > 
> > I can also send the pdf privately, by email
> > 
> > -serafino
> > 
> > > 
>  I was able to download it, but already paid the 10 bucks. :- (   How is 
> your special problem doing? AG 
> 

I've many special problems these days! And, you know, the country is 
ultra-chaotic. s.

-- 
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 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: 

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

 https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> J. B. Kennedy  
>>> *Philosophy of Science * 62 
>>> (4):543-560 (1995) 
>>> Abstract 
>>> I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
>>> 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
>>> Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
>>> correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
>>> causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they 
>>> are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
>>> proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
>>> product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in 
>>> the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
>>> representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
>>> assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
>>> EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
>>> class of proofs considered 
>>>  
>>> Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
>>> likely well worth it IMO. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
>>> not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
>>> something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very confused 
>>> about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
>> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
>> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
>> tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
>> postulates of QM. AG
>>
>>
>> Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive everything from a 
>> few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no the 
>> other way around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor product 
>> in quantum mechanics read this: 
>>
>>
>> https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf
>>
>> Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Thanks. This looks good. AG 
>
 
*I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent 
me, but from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that 
although he doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products 
in quantum mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically 
based, tensor products are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says 
otherwise. 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 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: 
>>>
>>> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting 
>>> story. 
>>>
>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
>> 
>>  
>> J. B. Kennedy  
>> *Philosophy of Science * 62 
>> (4):543-560 (1995) 
>> Abstract 
>> I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
>> 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
>> Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
>> correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
>> causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they 
>> are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
>> proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
>> product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in 
>> the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
>> representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
>> assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
>> EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
>> class of proofs considered 
>>  
>> Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
>> likely well worth it IMO. AG
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
>> not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
>> something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very confused 
>> about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
> tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
> postulates of QM. AG
>
>
> Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive everything from a 
> few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no the 
> other way around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor product 
> in quantum mechanics read this: 
>
>
> https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf
>
> Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.
>
> Brent
>

Thanks. This looks good. 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

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:

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

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE






  On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling
  proofs
  



J. B. Kennedy 
/Philosophy of Science
/ 62 (4):543-560 (1995)
Abstract
I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi
et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead
1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These
purport to show that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for
transmitting signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that
these proofs can be mathematically unified; they are disguised
versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these proofs
are circular.*The essential theorem relies upon the tensor
product representation for combined systems, which has no
physical basis in the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the
construction of this representation scheme by von Neumann and
Weyl built no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory.
Signalling between the wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is
unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the class of proofs
considered


Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but
very likely well worth it IMO. AG


I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says
something is not ruled out /*empirically*/ by some /*mathematical
proofs*/, and says something has no /*physical*/ basis in
*/axioms/*. He seems very confused about the difference between
mathematics and empiricism.

Brent


I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear 
even if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state 
how the tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, 
from the postulates of QM. AG


Physics isn't mathematics.  It's not required to derive everything from 
a few axioms.  The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no 
the other way around.  If you want to understand the use of the tensor 
product in quantum mechanics read this:


https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf

Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets.

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 5:57:53 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995). 
>
> You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
>
> I can also send the pdf privately, by email
>
> -serafino
>

 I was able to download it, but already paid the 10 bucks. *:- (   *How is 
your special problem doing? AG  

> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 agrays...@gmail.com  ha 
> scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story. 
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>
>
>
>
> On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
> 
>
> J. B. Kennedy 
> *Philosophy of Science * 62 
> (4):543-560 ( 1995)
> Abstract 
> I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
> 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
> Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
> correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
> causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they 
> are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
> proofs are circular. * The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
> product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in 
> the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
> representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
> assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
> EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
> class of proofs considered
>   
> Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
> likely well worth it IMO. AG 
>
>
> I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
> not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
> something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very confused 
> about the difference between mathematics and empiricism. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
> tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
> postulates of QM. 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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

['scerir' via Everything List]

I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).

You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p

I can also send the pdf privately, by email

-serafino

> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very 
> > > > interesting story.
> > > > 
> > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE 
> > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling 
> > > proofs 
> > > https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=KENOTE==http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1086%2F289885
> > > 
> > > 
> > > J. B. Kennedy https://philpapers.org/s/J.%20B.%20Kennedy
> > > Philosophy of Science 
> > > https://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?pub=827 62 (4):543-560 ( 1995)
> > > Abstract  
> > > I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
> > > (Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 
> > > 1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to 
> > > show that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting 
> > > signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these proofs can be 
> > > mathematically unified; they are disguised versions of a single theorem. 
> > > Second, I argue that these proofs are circular. The essential theorem 
> > > relies upon the tensor product representation for combined systems, which 
> > > has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms. Historically, the 
> > > construction of this representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built 
> > > no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the 
> > > wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out 
> > > empirically by the class of proofs considered
> > >  
> > > Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, 
> > > but very likely well worth it IMO. AG
> > > 
> > > > > I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who 
> > > says something is not ruled out empirically by some mathematical proofs, 
> > > and says something has no physical basis in axioms.   He seems very 
> > > confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.
> > 
> > Brent
> > 
> > > 
> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the tensor 
> product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the postulates of 
> QM. 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 
> 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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: 
>>
>> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story. 
>>
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>>
>
>
>
> On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
> 
>  
> J. B. Kennedy  
> *Philosophy of Science * 62 
> (4):543-560 (1995) 
> Abstract 
> I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
> 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
> Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
> correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
> causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they 
> are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
> proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor 
> product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in 
> the von Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this 
> representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling 
> assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the 
> EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the 
> class of proofs considered 
>  
> Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
> likely well worth it IMO. AG
>
>
> I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
> not ruled out *empirically* by some *mathematical proofs*, and says 
> something has no *physical* basis in *axioms*.   He seems very confused 
> about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.
>
> Brent
>

I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the 
tensor product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the 
postulates of QM. 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

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:

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

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE 





  On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs
  



J. B. Kennedy 
/Philosophy of Science / 62 
(4):543-560 (1995)

Abstract
I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et 
al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, 
Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show 
that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting 
signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these proofs can be 
mathematically unified; they are disguised versions of a single 
theorem. Second, I argue that these proofs are circular.*The essential 
theorem relies upon the tensor product representation for combined 
systems, which has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms.* 
Historically, the construction of this representation scheme by von 
Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling assumptions into the quantum 
theory. Signalling between the wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is 
unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the class of proofs 
considered



Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
likely well worth it IMO. AG


I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who says something is 
not ruled out /*empirically*/ by some /*mathematical proofs*/, and says 
something has no /*physical*/ basis in */axioms/*.   He seems very 
confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.


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 3:30:44 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:03:21 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:54:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to 
>>> go and look up a text book.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> I second this proposition. AG keeps asking nests of questions, when some 
>> serious amount of time reading a fairly standard quantum textbook would 
>> clear things up.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>
> You really don't get it. If Merzbacher is typical, there is no explanation 
> from First Principles. Do you know what that means? Next time I suppose you 
> will have me drinking Hemlock. AG
>

*You're a conventional thinker. The UFO discussion proved this. Nests of 
questions? Partly thinking out loud; partly substantive. Can you tell the 
difference? Why is it assumed that the singlet state has a definite total 
spin AM? Bruce specifically referenced a case where that type of assumption 
is part of a classical result with no non locality in evidence; classical 
elastic collisions of billiard balls. No uncertainty in momentum. Is it 
legitimate to assume zero uncertainty in spin AM in singlet case when the 
treatment is supposed to be quantum mechanical? Can a genius like you 
provide a coherent answer, or should I drink the Hemlock? 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]

ou 

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:03:21 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:54:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to 
>> go and look up a text book.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> I second this proposition. AG keeps asking nests of questions, when some 
> serious amount of time reading a fairly standard quantum textbook would 
> clear things up.
>
> LC 
>

You really don't get it. If Merzbacher is typical, there is no explanation 
from First Principles. Do you know what that means? Next time I suppose you 
will have me drinking Hemlock. 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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:54:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> Why try worrying these things out for yourself? The easiest thing is to go 
> and look up a text book.
>
> Bruce
>

I second this proposition. AG keeps asking nests of questions, when some 
serious amount of time reading a fairly standard quantum textbook would 
clear things up.

LC 

-- 
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: Cohen books

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 19:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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?

I don’t know, but I will ask some of my students who seem gifted in finding 
e-copies of books. Even legal one! But there might be much demand for the two 
DJ and DE Cohen books. Not all books can be found on the net, yet.

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.
> 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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 17:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you 
>>> understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion.
> 
> A sufficiently persistent and shared illusion is about as good a reality as 
> you can ask for.

To do physics, or just to live, that is enough of course. Being a 
phenomenological reality does not make it unreal, or the dentist would not use 
anaesthetics, and the computationalist would not send mails, nor even leave his 
bed.

But in (serious) metaphysics we want explain the phenomenologies from the 
assumed ontology.

In greek theology, god exists by definition, and the questions are: is god a 
material reality or is it something else. Should we try to explain Mind from 
Matter? From Matter alone? from matter + something else? or should we tray to 
explain Matter appearance from a theory of Mind? From mathematics?

What I did was to provide a test for this, and the result obtained is twofold:

1) if Indexical Mechanism is correct then the theory of both mind and matter is 
very elementary arithmetic, or anything Turing-equivalent to very elementary 
arithmetic. Physics has to be reduced to number psychology/theology.

2) The logic of the observable extracted from very elementary arithmetic in the 
way prescribed by “1)” is a quantum logic (actually more than one), and no 
empirical discrepancies have been found yet. 

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 
> .
> 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

[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
>

*What is the justification for assuming an exact total spin angular 
momentum for the singlet system, that is, value of zero with no 
uncertainty, if the claim is we're treating the singlet system quantum 
mechanically? AG *

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:00:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/23/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@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
>

When you create a singlet pair, how do you know the subsystems are 
*independent*, which, according to what you claim, is the basis for writing 
the tensor product in the wf for the singlet system?

Also, the tensor product is a bit more complicated. Every Ket is looking 
for a Bra, and we're dealing with a bi-linear mapping to the reals, from 
the inner product expanded as a Bra-Ket. Those Bra's, not explicitly 
included in the way the wf is usually written, are members of the dual 
space, dual to vector space of the Kets. It's complicated and I have to 
review some of the mathematics here, and hopefully, some day, to see how it 
relates to the singlet state wf. For something as important as non 
locality, I think we are obliged to do the detailed analysis.

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 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story. 
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
>



On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling proofs 

 
J. B. Kennedy  
*Philosophy of Science * 62 
(4):543-560 (1995) 
Abstract 
I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 
1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and 
Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR 
correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not 
causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they 
are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these 
proofs are circular.* The essential theorem relies upon the tensor product 
representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in the von 
Neumann axioms.* Historically, the construction of this representation 
scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling assumptions into the 
quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is 
unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the class of proofs considered 
 
Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, but very 
likely well worth it IMO. 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.