On 6/3/2016 4:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:41 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 4:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 8:22 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal
applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH).
Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws
of physics
can be simulated to any desired precision by a Turing machine (or
at any rate,
by a probabilistic Turing machine)". This is not true for Bell-type
experiments
on entangled particle pairs. To be more precise, the correlations
produced from
measurements on entangled pairs at spacelike separations cannot be
reproduced
by any computational process. [....]
### Unless something strange is going on here. In example, I'm
trying to
understand something J.Christian wrote recently.. See Appendix D,
page 8 and 9
in this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393v6.pdf
Joy Christian has been trying to disprove Bell's theorem for ages.
There is a fundamental mistake in her argument -- She claims that
Bell replaces a sum of expectation values by the expectation value
of a sum (see equations D3 and D4 of the paper you reference). But
Bell does no such thing: such a replacement is, of course, invalid,
but Bell does not do this. What actually happens is that the
hypothesis of independence (locality) is used to replace the
expectation value of the product with the product of expectation
values. This is explained very clearly in the review I referenced by
Brunner et al, arXiv: 1303.2849. In Section 1B, Brunner gives the
argument against the computability of the quantum results that
violate the inequalities. The point is that the proof of Bell's
theorem is not limited to correlations on entangled pairs -- it
applies to any sets of correlations between measurements on a series
of observables with a limited number of outcomes each. For example,
an experiment in which there are only two measurement choices (x or
y), and where the possible outcomes take two values (a,b in {-1,+1}.
When the process is truly local, the inequalities hold however the
data are generated. Computer simulations are local,so cannot
reproduce the quantum violations of the inequalities.
What do you mean by "computer simulations are local". Of course the
computation is performed locally, but it may compute or simulate
non-local processes.
See my other response. If the experimenters are spacelike separated
and perform computations locally, they cannot reproduce the quantum
correlations. If you choose to simulate the whole scenario, you still
cannot reproduce the quantum correlations without introducing
non-local hidden variables. In other words, the world we observe is
intrinsically non-local.
Right. But that doesn't mean it's not computable.
Brent
--
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.
