On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the > theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at how spacetime > emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topic to confirm... > > Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames > of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and > non-locality? > > Edgar > > > But It<Bit, a theory proposed by Wheeler, predicts that in the intermediate phase between observations, the properties of the particle vanish, as if the particle vanished down a ER=EPR wormhole tunnel, perhaps to a more abstract plane of consciousness or a higher world among many. It<Bit is a Many World Theory (MWT). Richard > > On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just >>>>> one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray >>>>> onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none >>>> required for the MWI?) >>>> >>>> Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 >>>> y2 z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at >>>> (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL >>>> because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2>. >>>> But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's >>>> inequality. >>>> >>> >>> If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, >>> before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be >>> the first time. >>> >>> I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? >>> >>> If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. >>> >> >> The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. >> The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain >> isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of >> say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two >> particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, >> which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are >> entangled in their superposition. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >>> I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR >>> forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense >>> to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... >>> >>> The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, >>> and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all >>> influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in >>> time. >>> >>> So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological >>> implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't >>> understand the explanation. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless >>>>> light itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one >>>>> imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in >>>>> boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. >>>>> >>>>> That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead >>>>> of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or >>>>> dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as >>>>> 1/r^2. >>>>> >>>>> No, but it will travel STL! >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a >>>> kind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interesting idea, >>>> similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability. >>>> >>>> But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near >>>> opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements. They >>>> are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to >>>> communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually >>>> receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's >>>> inequality. >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time >>> symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS" cuts it). I >>> tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else >>> roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
