On 12/11/2013 2:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> 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. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretationsHmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is explicitly non-local?I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions inseveral places that it is explicitly non-local:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretationWhat are the zig-zags?By "traveling" back in time and then forward a particle can be at two spacelike separate events.Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron andelectron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, withthe positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matterinterpretation, neither is FTL.

`Right. So it's "local" in the sense of slower than light, although it effectively`

`implements a non-local hidden variable.`

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. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens?http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hiddenvariables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett.As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leavestwo possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than oneoutcome.When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before,leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is splitseparately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed tothe other, creating four superposed states.

`But the measurements with more than one outcome turn out to be more correlated than`

`allowed by classical mechanics. So the four outcomes are not equally probable, in spite`

`of the symmetry of the experiment. That's why it implies non-locality in any hidden`

`variable model. I don't see that multiple worlds makes the non-locality go away, it just`

`seems to rephrase it in terms of some worlds interfering more than others.`

The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something else?No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution of the SWE over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in general is not localized in spacetime.Locality (as I've used the term) refers to the idea that things are only affected bytheir immediate environment. I think you are speaking of something else when you speakof being able to locate it somewhere in space-time.

`If a wave function extends over a large region, then a local interaction with it here`

`affects it's value over there. That's why a choice of measurement polarization at one end`

`of an EPR affects the results observed at the other end, even when the two are spacelike.`

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. What if we have two remote locations measuring entangled particles, and whether they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on the i-th binary digit of Pi at one locations, and the i-th binary digit of Euler's constant at the other location? How can hyper-determinism force the digits of Pi or e??? I think the i-th digit pi and the i-th digit of e are already determined.Yes, but they are determined by math, not this hyper-determinism concept which Iunderstand is a hypothesized physical process.

`I'm not even sure what a "physical" process would mean in this context. It's determined`

`by the way the universe is, like 2+2 is determined to be 4.`

You said hyperdeterminism means experimenters only think they can make independentchoices, but what if an experimenter chooses to rely on the digits of some constantnumber to inform his or her choices in the experiment? Does hyper-determinism decide notonly that the experimenter chooses to use Pi, but also each of the resulting steps theexperimenter makes when using Pi as his/her guide?

Right. That's why it's *hyper*-determinism. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.