On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from > an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It > has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and Bob, the statistics > that they observe come entirely from what you happen to put in you > accumulator for each setting of the relative orientations. >
Saying the idea of a singlet pair "has not been used anywhere in your simulation" and then saying it has "been used to link the copies of Alice and Bob" seems like a contradiction--isn't the linking itself part of the simulation? After all, getting a message from Bob is part of the simulated world that Alice experiences, just as much as her own measurement. What we have here is just a single distributed simulation being run on multiple computers computing different parts of it in parallel, and communicating data in order to determine interactions between those parts. Any local physics model can be simulated in such a way, including ones that don't involve "copies" existing in parallel in a given region--for example, space can be divided into a cubic grid and each computer can compute the internal dynamics in each cube, and computers that simulate cubes that share a face in common can share there data so that particles or waves leaving one cube through a given face will appear in the neighboring cube from the same face. This would still be one big simulation, just computed in a distributed way. And the fact that you *can* distribute the computation of the whole universe into a bunch of local sub-simulations that communicate only with their neighbors is true if and only if the laws of physics governing your universe are "local" ones. > > I agree that you can generate the required statistics locally in this way. > In fact, I can do it even more simply by taking a number of urns and > labelling each with a particular relative orientation, say parallel, > antiparallel, 90 degrees, and so on. In the "parallel" urn I place a number > of tokens labeled (A+B-) and an equal number labelled (A-B+). In the > "antiparallel" urn, I place a number of tokens labelled (A+B+), and an > equal number labelled (A-B-). In the "90 degree" urn I place a number of > tokens labelled (A+B+), an equal number labelled (A+B-), an equal number > labelled (A-B+), and finally an equal number labelled (A-B-). > I don't see how your method would be a *local* simulation though. In order for it to be local, you'd need to set things up so Alice first picks her result from one of three urns at her location, and Bob first picks his result from one of three urns at his location, and they can see the result of their own pick before either one knows which urn the other one picked from. > But that is precisely what you toy model does. It has absolutely no > connection with EPR or real experiments. One could generate any arbitrary > set of statistics to satisfy any theory whatsoever by this method. You have > demonstrated absolutely nothing about the locality or otherwise of EPR. > Would you agree that in my toy model the results at each location can be generated in realtime (each experimenter finds out their own result before finding out the other one's result, and before they have any way of knowing what detector setting the other one used), and in a local way (the rule that generates a result that appears at a particular position and time doesn't depend on anything outside the past light cone of that event), and that the subjective probabilities for each experimenter match those of the EPR experiment? If you agree but think your urn model is doing the same, please explain it in more detail because as I said, your short description above doesn't seem to me to have these characteristics. Jesse -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
