On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:50:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", >> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer >> of information, by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that >> there is no such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if >> "non-locality" meant some superluminal transfer of information, by >> particles or something else, then that would be giving a *local* >> explanation of non-locality, which is a contradiction. So non-locality can >> never mean "action at a distance", it can only mean that the theory is such >> that the state is not separable, and changing one end automatically changes >> the other, just as pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other side >> as well. (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended >> physical objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the >> best I can think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no >> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable >> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a >> distance". >> >> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just >> the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to >> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper >> explanation. >> >> Bruce >> > > Let's agree that electrons A and B form a singlet entangled system. Let's > further agree that they are non separable. What do you do with the fact > that when their spins are measured, they ARE in different spatial > locations, not even space separated in Bell experiments. How do we deal > with this FACT? AG > > > What do you want me to do with the fact? I learn to live with facts that I > can't do anything about. The fact that the system is non-local is a fact > that you just have to come to terms with. > > Bruce >
*ISTM that when you have a theory that seems correct and in some sense is well tested, but there are facts which contradict it, in this case a key fact right in front of your nose which contradicts it -- the fact that we see as plain as daylight that the subsystems as spatially separated -- invariably the theory must be wrong. 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.
