On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:02:47 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:03:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/14/2018 6:04 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> But non-locality is avoided by the randomness...so that no information is >>> transmitted. >>> >> >> *So every physicist, I would say virtually without exception, believes QM >> is a non local theory except you. * >> >> >> No. They agree with me that no information can be transmitted FTL. >> That's the definition of local. >> > > *Come back when you can explain "instantaneous influence". No one can > explain it, and neither can you. BTW, I never * > * claimed information can be transferred FTL, just "influences", like just > about everyone who thinks about the subject. But what is an "influence"? I > submit you have no clue. AG* > >> >> *Why do you post the obvious in an excuse for a rebuttal? -- that no >> information is transferred -- when you KNOW what we're discussing; namely, >> that there appears to be an "influence" (for lack of a better word) that is >> transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY. You're the one in denial, not me. AG* >> >> >>> You're like the person who says, "Now it's momentum has changed from an >>> unknowable indefinite value to an unknowable definite value. It's >>> witchcraft!" >>> >> >> Your problem is that you imagine that you perfectly understand the >> Newtonian world view. It's like water to a fish for you. But space and >> time are themselves unexplained. >> > > *I don't imagine anything of the sort. AG * > >> >> *As for the Newtonian conservation laws, IIRC they're provable based on >> Newton's laws of motion and don't challenge our current understanding of >> space-time. AG * >> >> >> What "understanding of spacetime"? >> > > > *Ideas like particles or events can be spatially and temporally separated, > or not. Is this the first time you've heard this idea? AG * > >> That understanding is no more than facility in using it to make >> predictions. >> > > *It's more than that. It's the world, wherein we exist. See above. AG * > >> >> Brent >> > I have been around the block on these matters with you. If you refuse to accept them then fine. I can't spend my time trying to convince creationists of evolution and I can't try to convince people who's metaphysical baggage prevents them from accepting something that we know is empirically correct. Quantum mechanics with its nonlocality and entanglement tells us that a quantum system is in many places at once. If I perform a rotation on one part of an EPR pair, say by adjusting a magnetic field, the other part similarly adjusts. The reason is not because there is a causal communication, but because the two parts of the EPR pair are not separable in space; they are in fact just the same thing, and further this wholeness is epistemologically greater.
Curiously with quantum field theory a lot of nonlocality is swept under the rug. The vanishing of equal time commutators on spatial manifolds demolishes a lot of this. With quantum fields though since entangled systems are short lived and decay the entanglement phase is quickly scrambled into the reservoir of states in the measurement apparatus. It is why the LHC is not used to research the foundations of quantum mechanics. In fact hadron detectors are colorimeters, which indicates heat an loss of quantum coherence. So the loss of physics is not that significant. However, once you bring spacetime into the picture nonlocality returns. This is one reason quantum field theoretic methods have not worked with quantum gravitation. With quantum gravitation nonlocality in fact returns with a vengence. LC -- 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.
