On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> I have been around the block on these matters with you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In your imagination. AG* >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's >>>> discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not >>>> getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. >>>> If >>>> you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics >>>> of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in >>>> greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage >>>> aside. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his >>> theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation >>> seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there >>> are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal >>> seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it >>> in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but >>> most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled >>> together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you >>> undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say >>> the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but >>> when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts >>> to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject >>> was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI >>> to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may >>> fool yourself, but not me. AG >>> >> >> If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic >> introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't >> understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly >> inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community >> for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the >> understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you >> would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG >> > > Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any > discussion of non locality. Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and > many find his arguments weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title > of his book? I am not so arrogant as to deny that possibility, but nothing > anyone has written here or on Vic's group indicates a viable model, or even > close. Tossing around words like "non separable" just doesn't cut it. AG >
Here is Redhead's book on Amazon. It is published by Clarendon press affiliated with Oxford. I reread my copy of this a couple of years ago. LC https://www.amazon.com/Incompleteness-Nonlocality-Realism-Prolegomenon-Philosophy/dp/0198242387/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523822635&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Metaphysics+of+quantum+mechanics+redhead > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *If you were paying even casual attention you'd know I never disputed >>>>> the empirical finding. AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I see. The two parts or subsystems are not separable in space despite >>>>> the fact that the two measurement devices are, and both subsystems are >>>>> the >>>>> same thing even though their arguably simultaneous measurements differ. >>>>> If >>>>> that makes you happy, I have no quarrel. AG* >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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.
