On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In >>> weighing in here I might be making an error of not addressing things >>> properly. >>> >>> Consider quantum entanglements, say the entanglements of two spin 1/2 >>> particles. In the singlet state |+>|-> + |->|+> we really do not have the >>> two spin particles. The entanglement state is all that is identifiable. The >>> degrees of freedom for the two spins are replaced with those of the >>> entanglement state. It really makes no sense to talk about the individual >>> spin particles existing. If the observer makes a measurement that results >>> in a measurement the entanglement state is "violently" lost, the >>> entanglement phase is transmitted to the needle states of the apparatus, >>> and the individual spin degrees of freedom replace the entanglement. >>> >>> We have some trouble understanding this, for the decoherence of the >>> entangled state occurs with that state as a "unit;" it is blind to any idea >>> there is some "geography" associated with the individual spins. There in >>> fact really is no such thing as the individual spins. The loss of the >>> entangled state replaces that with the two spin states. Since there is no >>> "metric" specifying where the spins are before the measurement there is no >>> sense to ideas of any causal action that ties the two resulting spins. >>> >>> This chaffs our idea of physical causality, but this is because we are >>> thinking in classical terms. There are two ways of thinking about our >>> problem with understanding whether quantum mechanics is ontic or epistemic. >>> >> >> The fact that probability waves evolve and interfere with each other, and >> effect ensembles but not individual members, is inherently baffling. So the >> wf can't be completely epistemic since it modifies physical reality. That >> is, It must be ontic in some respect, but in ways that defy rational >> analysis. AG >> > > I think you are falling into a trap that David Hume warns against. > Causality gives rise to correlation, but correlation is not necessarily the > result of causality. There is no effect or some causal principle at work > with either individual wave functions or wave functions in an ensemble of > experiments. The ensemble of experiments, the classic case being the two > slit experiment, is meant to deduces the wave nature of the quantum > physics. It is not there to deduce some causal influence underlying quantum > nonlocality. > > LC >
Applying deBroglie's formula, a change in p changes the wave length, and thus the distribution on the screen. That is, the ensemble responds to changes in the wave length due to interference. I therefore deduce that the wave length has a physical effect on the ensemble, but not on individual outcomes. AG -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
