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 
                leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR 

                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 
                many-world's is true.

            Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant 
            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 
        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:

    Hmm.  I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment 
    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 in several places that it is explicitly non-local:


    What are the zig-zags?

    By "traveling" back in time and then forward a particle can be at two 
    separate events.

Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter interpretation, 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 
        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 
        Bell's inequality - in the same world.

    Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens?


Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden variables? 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 leaves two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one outcome.

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 split separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to the 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

    Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis (
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something 

    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 by their immediate environment. I think you are speaking of something else when you speak of 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 
        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 

        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 
        inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by 
        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 
    they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on the i-th 
    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 I understand 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 independent choices, but what if an experimenter chooses to rely on the digits of some constant number to inform his or her choices in the experiment? Does hyper-determinism decide not only that the experimenter chooses to use Pi, but also each of the resulting steps the experimenter makes when using Pi as his/her guide?

Right.  That's why it's *hyper*-determinism.


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.

Reply via email to