On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett < >> <[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, >>> it assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does >>> the cos^2(theta/2) come from in your analysis? >>> >> >> The question I asked you was whether you thought you could definitively >> disprove the idea that all the observable statistics of QM could be >> reproduced by rules that are "local" in the specific narrow sense I had >> described to you--remember all that stuff about having computers >> determining what the value of local variables at each point in spacetime >> should be, using only information about the value of local variables in the >> past light cone of that point, plus the general rules programmed into them >> (which take that information about the past light cone as input, and spit >> out the value of local variables at that point as output)? This is a narrow >> and mathematically well-defined question (and is based specifically on how >> Bell defined 'locality'), it's completely irrelevant to the question >> whether or not the *idea* for the rules that I programmed into the >> computers that perform these local calculations came from looking at some >> equations that are written in a 'non-local' way (i.e., the equations >> generate their predictions by evolving a single 'state vector' for the >> entire spatially-distributed system). Do you understand this distinction >> between the narrow, well-defined definition of "local rules" (if you're >> unclear on what I mean here, please ask), and broader questions about what >> inspired the rules themselves? And are you claiming that even if we >> restrict our attention to the narrow definition of "local rules", you can >> still say with 100% certainty that no such "local rules" can accurately >> reproduce all the predictions about measurement outcomes made by QM? >> >> >> Your question, as outlined above, is completely devoid of interest to me >> as a physicist. I am interested in physical models that give an insight >> into how things come about. >> >> And yes, I am 100% certain that local rules, with local models for >> deciding what statistics should be reproduced to mimic quantum results on >> entangled systems, are impossible. >> > > And are you 100% certain of that last statement even if we define "local > rules" in the specific narrow sense I have described? Your comment that my > question concerning this narrow definition of locality is 'devoid of > interest' to you makes it unclear whether you were actually willing to > stick to the narrow definition in addressing my question, as I had > requested. > > > It is of no interest. You, and Rubin, advertised your work as a local > explanation of the EPR statistics. On detailed examination and pressing, > you admit that this is not the case > No, we use a definition of "locality" where it *is* the case, a mathematical definition that seems to correspond to how pretty much all mainstream physicists use the term "locality". You seem to say that even if a function takes as input only variables from the past light cone of a region to generate predictions about the values of variables within that region, it can be non-local because of something to do with where the idea for the function itself came from, a fuzzy notion that doesn't seem like it's likely to have any clear mathematical definition (if you think it can, please provide a general set of mathematical criteria for deciding whether some arbitrary mathematical function for generating predictions from boundary conditions is 'local', such that even a function that only uses variables in the past light cone as input may still fail to qualify as local). And since you answer my direct request to address my question with "it is of no interest", should I presume you are just refusing to answer the question I asked? Generally when people refuse to answer straightforward questions I take that as a sign they are not really interested in making a good-faith effort at mutual understanding, on figuring out what points we can (grudgingly) agree on as well as where we disagree (as opposed to just making a rhetorical case for a preferred view, or against a disliked view). So if you are indeed refusing outright to address this--even though this point about the possibility of a 'local' version of QM in this specific narrow sense is the central point *I* have been trying to argue this whole time--then I think I will bow out of our discussion here. > > Richard Feynman was frequently a bit "over the top" in his popular > accounts of physics. He is unkind to Newton, since the 1/r^2 form of the > law of gravitation follows simply from spherical symmetry and conservation > of flux. Coulomb's law can be derived in much the same way. The > mathematical basis is Gauss's law. > His argument was against evaluating physics theories in terms of non-mathematical criteria, the derivations you refer to are just a matter of showing one mathematical equation can be derived from some simpler mathematical postulates, symmetry principles, etc. But there is still no non-mathematical "explanation" for why whatever mathematical principles you start with happen to be the correct ones for describing nature. (Read a bunch of physicists getting philosophical about what their field is all about, and you'll find it's a very widely-held sentiment that physics is generally not be concerned with non-mathematical explanations for physical laws--the semi-famous 'crackpot index' at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html , concocted by physicist John Baez, even awards crackpot points to anyone who complains that even if a theory 'predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".') 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.
