From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: / > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular interpretation used, it has no operational meaning. / / / Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you need more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently random state. You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away. I flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do the same thing. It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were created to Earth and Andromeda. It's because of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden variables.Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell did, which is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.
No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual definiteness. See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock", Am. J. Phys. 78, 121 (2010). Neither, of course, do Kochen and Specker. Their proof is entirely logical and depends on the properties of non-commuting operators. Bell proved something similar in his 1966 paper on the problem of hidden variables.
Deflecting Bell's theorem does not actually help in giving a local account of EPR-type correlations. Bell inequalities can be proved without ever referring to quantum mechanics -- they depend only on the assumption of locality. Experiment shows that these inequalities are violated.
Bruce -- 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.
