On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:35:45 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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] 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 >
OR, are you saying that the violation of Bell's inequality PROVES that collapse exists and is instantaneous? 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.
