On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: smitra <[email protected]> >> >> >> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the dynamics >> as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables theory. >> >> Saibal >> >> >> There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The >> non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself -- >> nothing to do with the dynamics. >> >> >> >> But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the >> MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need of >> “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the >> mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without >> dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. >> Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of the >> quantum singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in collapse >> theories. In my extended development of the mathematics in another recent >> post, I demonstrated that there is actually no difference between MWI and >> CI in this regard. All that we have is the non-separability of the state, >> which means that a measurement on one particle affects the result of >> measurements on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all that >> non-locality means, and this is not changed by MWI. An awful lot of >> nonsense has been talked about this -- people trying to find a "mechanism" >> for the inseparability -- but that is not necessary. Quantum theory >> requires it, and it has been totally vindicated by experiment. That is the >> way things are, in one world or many. >> >> Bruce >> > > You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately > treat the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty in the > total spin AM? AG >
Ah yes, but far greater fun is found in the triplet state! LC -- 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.
