Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 May 2018, at 20:05, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
>>> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
>>> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
>>> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
>>> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
>>> so much at ease).
>>> 
>>> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
>>> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.
>> 
>> If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic with 
>> the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain just 
>> here. With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality 
>> (arithmetic for example), and explain all non classical logics by the 
>> constraints of self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical 
>> logics” non classical.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> Classicality may simply be an approximation.
> 
> In physics? Yes, that is a theorem in the classical mechanist theory. But the 
> mathematical notion of computation is classical, and with mechanism, we 
> cannot assume a non classical physical reality/appearance. We must deduce it 
> from the computations (which are executed in arithmetic, as the logicians 
> know since a century).
> You seem to assume a physical reality, but this cannot work with Mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep questions 
>> on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical. If 
>> quantum and classical realities are separate and equal aspects of the world, 
>> such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with objective loss of 
>> quantum information.
> 
> Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers do 
> not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers for 
> proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, notably to 
> understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can give references.
> The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. 
> Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing 
> emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). It 
> makes physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it is 
> Turing universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity axioms. 
> Note also that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, nor is 
> consciousness (amazingly enough: I am aware this is counter-intuitive).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> That depends upon how strongly one takes the computational analogue of 
> computing with the quantum basis of the universe, Seth Lloyd says the 
> universe is a computer. I am agnostic on that statement.


I am not.

With or without Mechanism, the physical universe cannot be a computer, nor the 
product of a computer. That would entail computationalism (my body is Turing 
emulable) which entails that the physical reality is not Turing emulable (see 
my papers, that is not obvious at all). 

So if the universe is a computer then the universe is not a computer. Making 
that idea inconsistent.

But maybe, for some purpose (other than metaphysics) that could be a could 
approximation, especially if we talk on some quantum computer. 




> If one were to say the universe is something like a computer and that this 
> also computer on Platonic ideal forms, something Tegmark more or less 
> advocates, then indeed the disappearance of quantum information would be as 
> if numbers started vanishing.

Tegmark hypothesis has been proved (since long) to be a consequence of 
mechanism. 

Weak materialism (the belief in a primary physical reality, or physicalism) is 
not compatible with Mechanism (the belief that my consciousness is invariant 
for a digital permutation made at some level).

I can give reference on this. I do not claim this to be obvious.

Bruno




> 
> 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 

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
>>> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
>>> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
>>> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
>>> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
>>> so much at ease).
>>>
>>
>> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
>> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.
>>
>>
>> If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic 
>> with the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain 
>> just here. With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality 
>> (arithmetic for example), and explain all non classical logics by the 
>> constraints of self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical 
>> logics” non classical.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> Classicality may simply be an approximation. 
>
>
> In physics? Yes, that is a theorem in the classical mechanist theory. But 
> the mathematical notion of computation is classical, and with mechanism, we 
> cannot assume a non classical physical reality/appearance. We must deduce 
> it from the computations (which are executed in arithmetic, as the 
> logicians know since a century).
> You seem to assume a physical reality, but this cannot work with Mechanism.
>
>
>
>
> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep 
> questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears 
> classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate and equal 
> aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with 
> objective loss of quantum information.
>
>
> Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers 
> do not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers 
> for proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, 
> notably to understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can 
> give references.
> The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. 
> Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing 
> emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). 
> It makes physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it 
> is Turing universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity 
> axioms. Note also that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, 
> nor is consciousness (amazingly enough: I am aware this is 
> counter-intuitive).
>
> Bruno
>

That depends upon how strongly one takes the computational analogue of 
computing with the quantum basis of the universe, Seth Lloyd says the 
universe is a computer. I am agnostic on that statement. If one were to say 
the universe is something like a computer and that this also computer on 
Platonic ideal forms, something Tegmark more or less advocates, then indeed 
the disappearance of quantum information would be as if numbers started 
vanishing. 

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 of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 May 2018, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/8/2018 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell >> > wrote:
>> ...
>>> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep 
>>> questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears 
>>> classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate and equal 
>>> aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with 
>>> objective loss of quantum information.
>> 
>> Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers do 
>> not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers for 
>> proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, notably to 
>> understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can give references.
>> The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. 
>> Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing 
>> emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). 
>> It makes physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it 
>> is Turing universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity 
>> axioms. Note also that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, 
>> nor is consciousness (amazingly enough: I am aware this is 
>> counter-intuitive).
> 
> That turns your whole argument into a redcutio, sense

 I guess you mean “ That turns your whole argument into a reduction ad 
absurdum, since"


> at the beginning it assumes one can say "yes" to the doctor and have one's 
> consciousness preserved by replacement of one's brain by a classical computer.



That reductio ad absurdum is not valid. As you say, mechanism presupposes that 
“my consciousness” is preserved through the emulation of my brain, but that 
does not entailed that consciousness “itself” can be emulated by a computer. 

I agree that is a subtle point. So let me try explain this “incorrectly”, but 
more simply, and then I correct the argument.

Imagine that consciousness is like a radio signal, emitted by the Big Bang 
(say).

Now our friend X is computationalist, and decide to get a brain transplant. He 
heard about the “radio signal” theory of consciousness, so he asks to his/her 
doctor, to ensure that the substitution level will be low enough so that he/she 
can still read the correct signal with the right frequencies, etc. 

That alone invalidates logically your reduction ad absurdum.

But of course, consciousness is not a radio signal, nor a signal at all. But 
consciousness is also not the same as computation, nor the emulation of the 
computation, nor anything third person definable.

 Consciousness is a higher order semantical notion, only lived as true, 
undoubtable, uncommunicable, by a person in touch with *some* truth, and to 
emulate that, you might need to emulate god and matter and so you might need to 
emulate the whole (arithmetical) truth, or all computations at once, which is 
not computable/emulable (but could be quantum computable, note). 

Consciousness is part of the semantic of a sort of abstract hero, that you are, 
and that is the part that needs the act of faith when you say yes to the 
doctor. The first person definition attributes it to your body and to its 
infinitely many counterparts in arithmetic, and all what a transplant brain 
does is a keeping up of ways to manifest your consciousness with respect to 
your Gaussian normal local histories.
That something is preserved don’t make it equivalent with its relative 
implementations.

Consciousness is part of a *true* (non computable) relationships between many 
numbers that no numbers can ever know nor justify rationally. But they can bet 
at their risk and peril.

Eventually, it is all in the difference between []p and []p & p. The doctor 
manages only the Gödel number of “[]p”, the finite representation, … for “p" 
you need a god (a self-encompassing  truth notion). That can be use to catalog 
your reduction as a confusion between []p and []p & p. 

If you don’t mind. 

With 8 hypostases, you have (8 * 7)/2 dualities, leading to 28 confusions 
possibles.

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 

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/8/2018 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:

...
It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep 
questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that 
appears classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate 
and equal aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then 
one must deal with objective loss of quantum information.


Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural 
numbers do not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read 
my papers for proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability 
theory, notably to understand that computation is an arithmetical 
notion. I can give references.

The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital.
Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing 
emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain 
transplant). It makes physics independent of the choice of the 
“ontology” as long as it is Turing universal, and that it has no 
induction axioms, nor infinity axioms. Note also that the physical 
universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, nor is consciousness (amazingly 
enough: I am aware this is counter-intuitive).


That turns your whole argument into a redcutio, sense at the beginning 
it assumes one can say "yes" to the doctor and have one's consciousness 
preserved by replacement of one's brain by a classical computer.


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 of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
>> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
>> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
>> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
>> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
>> so much at ease).
>> 
>> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
>> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.
> 
> If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic with 
> the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain just here. 
> With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality (arithmetic for 
> example), and explain all non classical logics by the constraints of 
> self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical logics” non 
> classical.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Classicality may simply be an approximation.

In physics? Yes, that is a theorem in the classical mechanist theory. But the 
mathematical notion of computation is classical, and with mechanism, we cannot 
assume a non classical physical reality/appearance. We must deduce it from the 
computations (which are executed in arithmetic, as the logicians know since a 
century).
You seem to assume a physical reality, but this cannot work with Mechanism.




> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep questions 
> on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical. If 
> quantum and classical realities are separate and equal aspects of the world, 
> such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with objective loss of 
> quantum information.

Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers do 
not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers for 
proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, notably to 
understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can give references.
The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. 
Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing emulable 
(consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). It makes 
physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it is Turing 
universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity axioms. Note also 
that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, nor is consciousness 
(amazingly enough: I am aware this is counter-intuitive).

Bruno






> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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 of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
>> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
>> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
>> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
>> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
>> so much at ease).
>>
>
> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.
>
>
> If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic 
> with the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain 
> just here. With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality 
> (arithmetic for example), and explain all non classical logics by the 
> constraints of self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical 
> logics” non classical.
>
> Bruno
>

Classicality may simply be an approximation. It may not fundamentally 
exist, and if it does there are then deep questions on how quantum 
mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical. If quantum and 
classical realities are separate and equal aspects of the world, such as 
what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with objective loss of quantum 
information.

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 of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like structure? 
>  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much understanding of 
> QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) attempt leads to … to 
> much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, but … I will need to 
> revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not so much at ease).
> 
> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.

If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic with 
the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain just here. 
With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality (arithmetic for 
example), and explain all non classical logics by the constraints of 
self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical logics” non classical.

Bruno


> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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 of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
> so much at ease).
>

I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.

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 of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:40:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett  > > wrote: 
> > 
> > A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons or 
> > silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff.. 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076
> >  
> > 
> >  
> 
> Wow! Impressive indeed. And that might plausibly play an important role in 
> unifying the quantum principles with gravitation. 
> Space-time might reduce into entanglement, maybe a sort of Dirac electron 
> dovetailing on itself and entangling with itself would do. 
> Not only there is only one person, playing hide and seek with itself, but 
> there would be only one particle, in the base of the sharable phenomenology 
> of matter! 
> 
> Take this with as much grains of salt you need. That is an impressive 
> success. It should help or at least inspire quantum computing on both the 
> theoretical and experimental issues. 
> 
> Would it help to test one-branch-influence at a distance? I doubt it. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> This is similar to what I said on the thread "entanglement." Entanglement is 
> a global property. Given a set of states with symmetry G, an entanglement 
> between them is a quotient of some of that symmetry, say H so that K = G/H. 
> We may think of the group G as 
> 
> G = K ⋉ H.
> 
> K ⋉ H is the semi-join of the relations K and H, the set of all tuples in K 
> for which there is a tuple in H that are equal.If you have quantum states 
> that are entangled according to symmetries of common tuples the coset is then 
> a "modulo those symmetries." In this way an entanglement of two electrons 
> results in a net scalar field for the singlet state or a vector state for the 
> triplet state and the fermionic properties of the electrons have been removed 
> and replaced with this entangled boson state. This in fact has some bearing 
> on the moduli space for SU(2) gauge field and its relationship to the Dirac 
> operator as found by Atiyah and Singer.
> 
> This is analogous to the standard idea of a base manifold with a principal 
> bundle. For S = M×P, where the transformations on the bundle P leaves the 
> configuration of a vector or tensor field on M invariant. If the bundle 
> structure is SO(3,1) ~ SU(2)×SU(1,1) and S = SO(3,2) then
> 
> AdS_4 = SO(3,2)/SO(3,1)
> 
> indicates how SO(3,1), the gauge-like symmetry of spacetime, is a principal 
> bundle over AdS_4. AdS_4 is the anti-de Sitter spacetime in four dimensions, 
> and we can then see that SO(3,2) is a spacetime with a Lorentz group 
> fibration. 
> 
> Spacetime is global, or at least the CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n is 
> equvalent to the global field content of gravitation in the AdS_n. by very 
> similar means quantum mechanics and entanglements are global. Quantum field 
> theory though is local. There are causality conditions imposed on quantum 
> field theory that eliminate the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. With all 
> the "wonders" of quantum nonlocality it is odd that QFT destroys them, but 
> the nonlocal physics is on scales much smaller and of shorter time than most 
> high energy physics experiments and the range of detectors. However, with 
> black holes there is a lot of Einstein lensing and local Lorentz 
> transformations that make this simplification in QFT not so workable. We 
> therefore have the nonlocality of gravity in the AdS_n bulk and the dual 
> quantum field CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n can mix. Nonlocality in the 
> gravitational bulk can be transferred to the CFT. More physically relevant is 
> that for a black hole the entanglement phase of a quantum system can become 
> transferred to the black hole or spacetime physics. In this way we may think 
> of spacetime as "built up" of quantum entanglements. 
> 
> As a result the nonlocal properties of quantum entanglement in curved 
> spacetime can be transformed into local properties, where the entanglement 
> phase is transferred to spacetime or a holographic screen such as on a black 
> hole. It is very similar to the local properties of gauge theory with a 
> principal bundle on a local patch, but where the overlap of these patches 
> determine gauge connections and fields. With what I am working with this is 
> how I see the development of gravitation from quantum fields. Since 
> gravitation is woven with quantum entanglements then for a small number of 
> degrees of freedom gravitation is "quantum," but for a large number it 
> assumes more of a classical-like structure.

It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like structure?  
What you say is very 

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:40:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> > 
> > A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
> or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff.. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076
>  
>
> Wow! Impressive indeed. And that might plausibly play an important role in 
> unifying the quantum principles with gravitation. 
> Space-time might reduce into entanglement, maybe a sort of Dirac electron 
> dovetailing on itself and entangling with itself would do. 
> Not only there is only one person, playing hide and seek with itself, but 
> there would be only one particle, in the base of the sharable phenomenology 
> of matter! 
>
> Take this with as much grains of salt you need. That is an impressive 
> success. It should help or at least inspire quantum computing on both the 
> theoretical and experimental issues. 
>
> Would it help to test one-branch-influence at a distance? I doubt it. 
>
> Bruno 
>

This is similar to what I said on the thread "entanglement." Entanglement 
is a global property. Given a set of states with symmetry G, an 
entanglement between them is a quotient of some of that symmetry, say H so 
that K = G/H. We may think of the group G as 

G = K ⋉ H.

K ⋉ H is the semi-join of the relations K and H, the set of all tuples in K 
for which there is a tuple in H that are equal.If you have quantum states 
that are entangled according to symmetries of common tuples the coset is 
then a "modulo those symmetries." In this way an entanglement of two 
electrons results in a net scalar field for the singlet state or a vector 
state for the triplet state and the fermionic properties of the electrons 
have been removed and replaced with this entangled boson state. This in 
fact has some bearing on the moduli space for SU(2) gauge field and its 
relationship to the Dirac operator as found by Atiyah and Singer.

This is analogous to the standard idea of a base manifold with a principal 
bundle. For S = M×P, where the transformations on the bundle P leaves the 
configuration of a vector or tensor field on M invariant. If the bundle 
structure is SO(3,1) ~ SU(2)×SU(1,1) and S = SO(3,2) then

AdS_4 = SO(3,2)/SO(3,1)

indicates how SO(3,1), the gauge-like symmetry of spacetime, is a principal 
bundle over AdS_4. AdS_4 is the anti-de Sitter spacetime in four 
dimensions, and we can then see that SO(3,2) is a spacetime with a Lorentz 
group fibration. 

Spacetime is global, or at least the CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n is 
equvalent to the global field content of gravitation in the AdS_n. by very 
similar means quantum mechanics and entanglements are global. Quantum field 
theory though is local. There are causality conditions imposed on quantum 
field theory that eliminate the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. With all 
the "wonders" of quantum nonlocality it is odd that QFT destroys them, but 
the nonlocal physics is on scales much smaller and of shorter time than 
most high energy physics experiments and the range of detectors. However, 
with black holes there is a lot of Einstein lensing and local Lorentz 
transformations that make this simplification in QFT not so workable. We 
therefore have the nonlocality of gravity in the AdS_n bulk and the dual 
quantum field CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n can mix. Nonlocality in 
the gravitational bulk can be transferred to the CFT. More physically 
relevant is that for a black hole the entanglement phase of a quantum 
system can become transferred to the black hole or spacetime physics. In 
this way we may think of spacetime as "built up" of quantum entanglements. 

As a result the nonlocal properties of quantum entanglement in curved 
spacetime can be transformed into local properties, where the entanglement 
phase is transferred to spacetime or a holographic screen such as on a 
black hole. It is very similar to the local properties of gauge theory with 
a principal bundle on a local patch, but where the overlap of these patches 
determine gauge connections and fields. With what I am working with this is 
how I see the development of gravitation from quantum fields. Since 
gravitation is woven with quantum entanglements then for a small number of 
degrees of freedom gravitation is "quantum," but for a large number it 
assumes more of a classical-like structure.

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 of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

You can look at the paper here 

 on 
the Nature website. I can see it employs Bogoliubov coefficients or 
amplitudes. 

LC 

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:43:11 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
> or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff.. 
>
>
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076
>  
>
> 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 of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons or 
> silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff..
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076

Wow! Impressive indeed. And that might plausibly play an important role in 
unifying the quantum principles with gravitation.
Space-time might reduce into entanglement, maybe a sort of Dirac electron 
dovetailing on itself and entangling with itself would do.
Not only there is only one person, playing hide and seek with itself, but there 
would be only one particle, in the base of the sharable phenomenology of matter!

Take this with as much grains of salt you need. That is an impressive success. 
It should help or at least inspire quantum computing on both the theoretical 
and experimental issues.

Would it help to test one-branch-influence at a distance? I doubt it.

Bruno


> 
> 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.

-- 
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 of macro objects

[Brent Meeker]

NEAT!   Maintaining entanglement for that long should allow testing 
whether the entanglement persists over different gravitational potentials.


Brent

On 4/26/2018 4:42 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting 
stuff..



http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076 



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.

Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruce Kellett]

A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff..



http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076

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.