> On 15 Apr 2018, at 17:03, [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.
Redhead’s book is very nice and good, but Imo, Maudlin’s book (on non separability) is better, and a more easy read. The selected papers by Bell are rather interesting too. But non locality is always studied in a more or less explicit mono-universe view, and few address the question of “influence at a distance” in the many-world view. Maudlin sum this briefly as an open problem to even define what “non local” could mean in the many-world (non collapse) picture, except for the Bohm pilot theory, where the potential guiding the wave do implies influence at a distance and in the past (which is a good reason to me for not believing in a collapse. > 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? “Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism” Clarendon Oxford, 1987. Note that “incompleteness” here refer to Einstein EPR, not to Gödel! Tim Maudlin’s book is “Quantum Non-Locality & Relativity”, Blackwell, 1994. > 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 > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
