On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which
leaves
only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox:
1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
2. Measurements have more than one outcome
In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or
many-world's
is true.
Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of
physics
operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the
hardest one
for people to grasp, however.)
Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's
transactional
interpretation.
Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just
even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also
non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM.
I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's.
Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations
in QM.
But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR
measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the
same world. The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local
in spacetime.
Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that
they are unique?
There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the
can make
independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint.
Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a
the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some
cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating
external to that mind.
I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent
with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running
on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer
make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches
what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be
repeating an on interval of 2^n or less.
There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if hyper-determinism
is true, it's true of the universe as a whole.
Brent
It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of memory (and
therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than 2^n states without
repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat, or the observer will get to
states where their choices cannot be made to continue to agree with quantum measurements.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
