On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:38:30 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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 * >
*I suppose it could be traced to the superposition principle; that the state vector of the singlet state is a linear combination of the states which are members of the corresponding Hilbert space of the system. But why are these states tensor product states? 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.
