On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:46:37 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 6:09:10 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 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, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 4:04:55 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 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, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>>> 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 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.

Reply via email to