On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jason,
Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially
in P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. This
is another way the clock time P-time distinction works to produce
reality as it exists....
No, the particles MUST have their properties determined at the time
of creation to obey the law of conservation of particle properties.
Many worlds says that after the decay the electron is both spin up and
spin down and the same for the positron.
However they are correlated such that the super position is:
(e up and p down) + (e down and p up)
When you measure one, you too become part of that superposed state.
(measured e up and e up and p down) + (measured e down and e down and
p up)
According to many worlds, you end up entangled (correlated with) both
of them. According to collapse theories, only one of them (the other
state mysteriously vanishes).
Your proposal that only one definite outcome is set at the time of the
pair's creation, that is, the electron is either definitely,and only
up or definitely and only down, prior to measurement, is unworkable,
as it leads to statistics that are incompatible with observed and
predicted quantum mechanics, as Bell showed.
You can't just deny Bell's result or say it doesn't apply to your
theory. it was meant to cover exactly the case as you described it.
You should not feel bad that you missed it. Einstein missed it too.
Jason
That is particle physics 101. Specifically in this case their spins
must be created equal and opposite but this is only known to their
frame, not to that of the observer until he links and aligns it with
a measurement.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:51:50 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually
exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather
than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.
If the appearance of space is emergent, then shouldn't the
appearance of time be as well?
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two
particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property
conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when
it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the
two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the
observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the
observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement
of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become
aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in
the observer's frame.
Yes, the original EPR paper is what motivated Einstein, Podolsky,
and Rosen to propose there were hidden variables (which is what you
propose above in saying the "spin relation of the two particles is
fixed when they are created"). However, under Bell's modification to
the EPR case, he found that supposing such hidden variables have a
single definite state prior to measurement is impossible and cannot
work. This becomes evident when you measure something such as the
polarization of photons at angles other than 0, 45, or 90 degrees,
where the agreements are 100%, 50%, and 0%. If instead, you measure
at angles like 30%, you find the agreement is 75%, which is higher
than is mathematically possible assuming the photons have "single,
pre-determined properties" prior to the measurement.
The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since
their creation. It had to since their creation determined it.
However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a
single common event connected the two frames at which time every
dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is
basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of
each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which
point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a
single dimensionality.
The only way the particles can have their properties determined at
the time of creation, and remain compatible with Bell's theorem, is
if the properties of the particles are in a mult-valued (superposed)
state.
Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your
"As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is
only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL
influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds." is
certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model.
This is exactly the case Bell's theorem applies to, the notion of
single definite values prior to measurement. This is not clear from
reading only about the EPR paradox, you need to read through Bell's
paper (or the website I provided that gave a walk through of it).
Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But
that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes
observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's
frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead).
We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All
dimensional frames arise independently of each other and unaligned
with each other (because there is no common fixed pre-existing
standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent
frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until
they are connected and then dimensionally aligned by some shared
event.
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does
your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
)? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there
is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL
influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or
alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither
alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or
definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat
is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the
radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not
decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality
of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this
leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which
require the superposition to exist).
3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already
exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical
information space, as I've described before in a number of posts.
If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of
1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed?
This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional
computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if
given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk
could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding
states in the superposition are not really there, there is
apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the
computation comes from.
However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you
understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled
"Yes, my book does cover quantum reality", or refer to the book
itself, or I can explain further....
Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for
now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some
resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far
in answering my questions.
Jason
On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
All,
I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason
because he brings up a very important issue.
The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are
'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum
theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in
this space.
However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose
another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete
information entities in logical computational space, and that what
wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become
dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events
produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional
variables of interacting particles).
I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea.
It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically "we
live in a simulation running on a quantum computer": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different
interpretation.
I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to
deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-
electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron
being in more than one place at the same time?
I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you
answered the following questions. According to your interpretation:
1. Are faster-than-light influences involved?
2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive
or dead?
3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the
intermediate computations performed?
Jason
However this approach that space is something that emerges from
quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to
events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves
all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical
ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.
--
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.
--
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.
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
r />
--
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.
