On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > 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? >> > > Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a > single state of the superposition. > > > I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say it > in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary base). > A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up and > Down particles. > > > Thanks, I will be sure to make that point more explicit in the future. > > > The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, > > > Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag: > the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles. > > > > but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down > + Measured_Down_Up. > > Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have > just a single state. > > > I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is a > single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly > contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the > universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and it is > perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all possible > complementary states of the universe. > > In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary > intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that the > INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all sets > (which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It is similar > to a^0 = 1. > > I think I was following until you said it is like a^0 = 1.. Jason > > With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets in > the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average universal > machine observes when it looks below its substitution level relatively to > its most probable computations/universal neighbor. > > Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the explanation > is in the "material", probabilistic, intensional nuance of self-reference. > > Bruno > > > > Jason > > >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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.
