On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:46:37 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 6:09:10 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:35:18 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 4:04:55 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 2:45:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 3:20:39 PM UTC-5, [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become >>>>>>> entangled, say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local >>>>>>> connection? That is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? >>>>>>> AG >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Entanglement is a form of nonlocality. >>>>>> >>>>>> LC >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, that's what I thought, but consider this. It's clear that >>>>> information can't be transmitted due to entanglement or non locality. But >>>>> aren't we entangled with the external world, yet receive information from >>>>> it? TIA, AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> Or look at it this way; if I am NOT entangled with the photons coming >>>> my way allowing me to SEE the world, and NOT entangled with the various >>>> pressure waves that enable me to hear and feel the world, what I am >>>> entangled with? TIA, AG >>>> >>> >>> The classical or macroscopic world is in part at least related to how >>> quantum states are entangled at different times with other states in the >>> environment. This though is not a level of description that can tell you >>> much about these specific interactions. The quantum world is in effect in a >>> sort of random Zeno machine that continually reduces wave functions, and in >>> effect it can be argued it does this to itself. Quantum phases are being >>> continually mixed and re-entangled so as to generate a sort of quantum >>> phase chaos. >>> >>> LC >>> >> >> *This sounds reasonable, but when I try to apply I run into big trouble. >> Suppose there's a free Nitrogen molecule coming my way, and when it strikes >> me I experience a breeze. Am I ever entangled with it prior to impact? >> IIUC, its wf spreads with time. Same for an assumed wave packet. Not sure >> which wf is appropriate to apply, That aside, but whichever, that's an >> initial form which spreads and it is most concentrated when initially >> observed. But where is the observer to set the initial condition? TIA, AG* >> > > *The general question is this; how does one get an entangled system from > two UN-entangled systems, each with its own WF? TIA, AG * >
*I just don't see how we gets *spontaneous* entangled states from unentangled states. In the free Nitrogen molecule case described above, we don't seem to even have a well defined WF of a free Nitrogen molecule to use, to get entangled with any other system. This goes to the heart of decoherence theory. It might be a lot of handwaving BS without substance. TIA, 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.
