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, [email protected] > 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 [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.
