On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >> >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra <[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 entangled coins, 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). > There is another reply by Robert B. Griffiths "EPR, Bell, and quantum locality" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf ) which says that Mauldin was wrong in his reply to Baylock. Who to believe? "An important lesson to be drawn from all of this is the need for a clear presentation of consistent principles of quantum reasoning in textbooks and courses. When teaching courses on quantum information I always stress the fact that there are no nonlocal influences in quantum theory, and point out that this principle is useful to keep in mind when analyzing quantum circuits. Unfortunately, physics students trained in traditional quantum courses have difficulty replacing, or at least augmenting, the calculational rules they learned by rote with a consistent probabilistic analysis of what is going on. They may already have learned that the superluminal influences reflected in violations of Bell’s inequality cannot be used to transmit information. But they also need to hear a simple explanation for why this is so: such influences do not exist." > 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. > Bell's reasoning also makes use of implicit assumptions about definite results for unmeasured things. This is not valid in QM. Jason -- 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.
