Jason, No, you simply don't understand what I'm saying, what my model is. There are two independent separate mini spacetime fragments here. When you understand that you will see how it works and avoids the problems you point out...

## Advertising

You should not feel bad that you missed it. It goes against the common sense view of the single background spacetime that QM mistakenly assumes. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:20:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net<javascript:>> > 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net>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> >>>> 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 <edga...@att.net>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> >>>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > thing...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > 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 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.