On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: > > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > >>> > >>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > >>> > >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: > >>>> One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact > >>> that > >>>> the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. > >>> So, in > >>>> any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from > >>> only > >>>> the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects > >>> > >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it > >>> already > >>> refers to multiple points in 3space. > >>> > >>> Brent > >>> > >>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have > >>> multiple > >>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG > >> > >> The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial > >> coordinates. > >> > >> Brent > >> > >> OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG > >> > >> So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity > >> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the > >> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the > >> measurement is treated as Everett does. It still zeroes out cross > >> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the > >> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote > >> places. > >> > >> Brent > > > > That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the > > wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two > > particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was > > created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an > > ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is > > then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the > > entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put > > ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two > > particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the > > entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and > > Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at > > all. > > Sure it does. The state vector itself is a function of spacelike > separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal > components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality. > > Brent >
Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes instantaneous collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's inequality is, or must be violated? 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.
