On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:09 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 04-04-2022 01:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > The standard model, and quantum field theory, are local because they > > were made that way. A fundamental assumption of QFT is > > micro-causality, namely, the assumption is that all field commutators > > vanish outside the light cone. This assumption imposes strict > > locality. But it is an assumption -- not a God-given truth. There are > > clear reasons for supposing that this assumption cannot be universally > > valid, since non-local effects, as evidenced by non-separable states, > > are clearly present in the world. > > > > QFT is consistent with all of the low energy physics we know about > including bell-type experiments, because it's ultimately just QM applied > to fields. >
QFT is not used in Bell correlation experiments. So that comment is irrelevant. States can be non-local, but interactions are local and non-local states > can be created locally from separable states. > Sure. But the singlet non-separable state does not refer to any specific distance between the particles. When they are moved apart, the entangled state remains non-separable. But when a measurement on one particle then affects the other particle, that is a non-local effect, by definition. > To make this point even more strongly, I would urge you to come up > > with an actual local account of the Bell correlations -- and that > > means that you can no longer simply assume that it must be local > > because everything is local -- you have to give the details of the > > local mechanisms that make it all happen, in which "time evolution > > step by step proceeds in a manifestly local way". I am completely > > confident that you cannot do this -- if you could, you would have > > produced this local account long ago, rather than relying on some > > unspecified magic to make everything work out. > > One can just put an entire Bell-type experiment in a quantum computer > create entangled qubit states using Hadamard and CNOT operations and > then let two programs representing Alice and Bob do measurements. Then > everything is always manifestly local from start to finish. Doing this > exercise will then make clear that in the MWI it's important to define > observers as algorithms and that this then defines a preferred basis. > I'll write up the details later. > I have pointed out in another email that this is essentially irrelevant. Aspect's experiment was not conducted in a quantum computer, and it is Aspect's experiments that you are required to explain. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS800w%2B0WMDwEEq35mVtyUYnHYzPj%2Bs_h1CaHq6gqiMxA%40mail.gmail.com.
