On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:48:10 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > 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 >
Am I to assume you don't have a substantive answer with so much at stake? 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.
