Precisely. I think there is some degree of confusion around the
terms 'local' and 'non-local'. The wave function is non-local in
that it refers to the two separated particles as a single entity,
without specifying any particular interaction between them. This is
a simple consequence of the fact that the wave function resides in
configuration space, and any suggestion of a 'local mechanical'
connection between the remote particles is lost when we move back
into physical space in order to compare the quantum predictions
coming from the wave function to our experimental results.
When people ask for a 'local' explanation of anything, they are
thinking in terms of a 'mechanism', such as the exchange of
particle that can carry information in a local way. If they think of
a 'non-local' interaction, they still think in this mechanistic way
by considering a faster-than-light tachyonic exchange that is
completely analagous to the subluminal particle exchange
characteristic of normal local interactions. Such thinking is
inapplicable to the wave function in quantum mechanics. When the
wave function is describing two or more particles, it is
intrinsically non-local in that in certain circumstances the wave
function describes a single state, even though its parts might be
widely separated in space. This form of intrinsic non-locality does
not have any 'mechanism' underlying it -- there is no subluminal or
superluminal particle exchange going on in the background to hold
the dispersed state together! The non-locality is intrinsic: it
cannot be reduced to some local mechanistic account.
Bruce
### Yuval Ne'eman suggested a fibre bundle "embedding" of EPR non-locality, in
this paper
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/27/026/27026800.pdf
its a sort of geometrical solution.
Btw it seems that also Zeilinger is suggesting a solution in terms of a
re-definition of space-time.
"Then quantum
entanglement describes a situation where information exists about possible
correlations between possible future results of possible future measurements
without any information existing for the individual measurements. The latter
explains quantum randomness, the first quantum entanglement. And both have
significant consequences for our customary notions of causality. It remains to
be seen what the consequences are for our notions of space and time, or
space-time for that matter. Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond such
considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-time, a
conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the Viennese
physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s absolute space and
absolute time form their throne. The hope is that in the end we will have new
physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity.”
A.Zeilinger
--
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.
