On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > No, please carefully read my new topic post "Another shot at how spacetime > emerges from quantum events" > Okay. Just as a tip, which I think will make things a little easier for others to follow a conversation, is to generally it is best to answer new questions within the same thread where the question is asked, and ideally with responses in-line with the question. This is the usual convention on this list. To be clear, I think it is fine to say "I've already answered question X in thread Y", but if it is a new question in thread Z, it is probably better to answer it in thread Z. This is particularly true as it is common for a single thread to grow to include dozens, if not hundreds of responses, and locating the answer in that thread can become very difficult. > where I explain this process in detail. You will see why it doesn't lead > to MW but instead to many fragmentary spacetimes (entanglement networks) > which link and align via shared events. But all this occurs in the same > underlying computational (not dimensional) space which everything is part > of. > > The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame > when they are created. It's just that that frame (entanglement network) is > not linked to that of the observer until a common event (observer's > measurement of one particle's spin) links and aligns the particles' spin > orientation frame to that of the observer's. Prior to that they are > completely separate spacetimes. That's why the spins are indeterminate in > the frame of the observer until he measures one and by doing so links and > aligns their frame with his. > > This process falsifies FTL, non-locality, MWI (unless you want to call the > fragmentary entanglement networks separate worlds. They are separate > spacetime fragments but not really separate 'worlds' since they continually > merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.) > > But the point I and others have repeatedly made is that this is a local hidden variable theory, which is unworkable without FTL influences (given Bell's theorem, which is a mathematical proof). Jason > Edgar > > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason 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. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown >> or Down_Up, 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. >> >> 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. > -- 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.
