On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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.




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.


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


Bruno,

According to a prediction of "It<Bit", a theory of the creation of matter from information proposed by Wheeler,
the properties or measure of particles vanish in between observations.

I am not sure Wheeler has ever believe this. He seem to have come back to the MWI, which provides a realist account of his participatory "interpretation".



Its measure upon detection-observation is determined by the binary question asked by the observer. If the same question is asked by every MWI observer, an unchanged world with the expected measures is maintained.

But how the "other terms" vanish?



This would amount to a controlled experiment.

Say have half the observers ask a different question and flip back and forth (for detection of the resulting signal)..
Is that arithmetically possible.

Even if it is, the question is not just the arithmetical possibility (consistency), but it has to be statistically reasonable.

Anyway, if comp is correct, there is no choice. Physics becomes independent of the basic ontology or theory. Deriving physics from a clearly non physical TOE (like arithmetic) ensures the testability of the comp theory.

Bruno





Richard

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 <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> 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 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.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.
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 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.


--
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.

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 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.

Reply via email to