On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:20:05 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:58:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: <[email protected]> >> >> >> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:53:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> 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* >> >> >> I wish you luck with your project to prove quantum mechanics wrong. >> >> Bruce >> > > *Right now I have a more modest goal. Starting from the postulates of QM, > how do you justify writing the wf of the singlet state as a superposition > of tensor product states? TIA AG * >
*What it's not. It's not the SWE. It's not Born's Rule. It's not the operator correspondence with observables. 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.
