George, isn't all this just a matter of perspective? From QM perspective, this demand to measure something in conventional terms sounds like circular logic - as long as no conventional physics phenomenon takes place, there will (from the perspective of conventional physics) be no knowledge or confirmation that anything happened at all.
But from the perspective of QM, something does take place when there are changes in entangled particles, and it takes place at both ends of the entangled particles, the moment a change is made at either end. One way to describe this is that information travels instantaneously. What makes QM so appealing is that QM can provide a framework to calculate all this, whereas conventional physics cannot, because conventional physics dogmatically sticks to the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Changes in entangled particles (appear to) take place instantaneously, i.e. at a speed faster than the speed of light. Whether or not we should add "appear to" in that last sentence just depends on what perspective one takes. Conventional physics sticks to its dogmas and effectively ignores that entanglement poses a problem to their dogmas. QM suggests that our conventional ways of calculating things do not cater for entanglement very well, while QM has no trouble with it. As I see it, George, you choose to ignore the calculations that QM can make, and you do so because you prefer to stick to conventional physics, which is your prerogative. But this seems merely a question of perspective to me. QM takes a perspective that makes it possible to make all kinds of calculations about such things, which may come in handy and seems interesting. And isn't that last bit is an appropriate epistemological perspective? Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [epistemology 9774] What is Epistemology? >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 11:22 AM >> Georges, under BA) Transfer among observers OL, OS, OR., you >> say that >> as long as there's no confirmation it stays a surmise. > ================== > G: > So it does. No matter how high gets for OL the probability > at OR after OL's measure, it stays probability and not > knowledge. For all OL knows, the particle at OR may not > exist at all. > ================== > >> >> But imagine two entangled particles A1 and A2 at location >> L1 and L2. >> Person 1 changes the status of A at L1, which is observed >> by person 2 >> at L2. Person 2 then confirms the change by changing the >> status of >> particle B2, which is entangled with particles B1 at L1. >> The change of >> B1 would be noticed by person 1 at L1. >> >> Wouldn't that constitute immediate transfer of >> information, as well as >> its confirmation? >> >> >> Cheers! >> Sam Carana > ============= > G: > It would in some science fiction imaginary world, but not > in ours. In ours, the entanglement happens at the moment > when a neutral pion at rest at position OS decays into > a pair of photons entangled by their opposite, canceling > one another spins, by virtue of momentum preservation. > Afterwards, there is no question of re-entangeling, > changing the entanglement, etc., but exclusively of > measuring and impacts thereof. Shelving the additional > problem of blurring, OL can measure HIS spin and > surmise that of OR, but not KNOW it, nor even if the > photon at OR still exists. > > And the essential. Lacking the continuous pole of the > fundamental cognitive polarity continuum/discreteness, > QM is a recipe of formulas, doubtless brilliant, but > lacking any phenomenal sense. > > Why does everybody prattle about QM Enigmas, but not about > QFT or GR? Because the latter are rational physical Models > needing thorough work to be understood and have no > mystery-appeal of bad science fiction or phantasmagorial > panpsychism or visitors from other worlds. > > Cheers > Georges. > ================ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
