On 11/21/2024 8:28 PM, smitra wrote:
On 21-11-2024 23:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/21/2024 5:12 AM, smitra wrote:
On 18-11-2024 07:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 4:17 PM PGC <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Your response presents strong points but contains some redundancies
and overlapping arguments. Here's a revised version with greater
focus, while maintaining the original’s precision and accuracy:
-------------------------
Bruce, let’s directly address the epistemic interpretation of the
wavefunction. While this view neatly avoids ontological commitments
and sidesteps issues like FTL action, it doesn’t fully account for
experimentally observed phenomena such as violations of Bell’s
inequalities.
The violation of Bell inequalities implies non-locality, and the
epistemic interpretation of the wave function is perfectly compatible
with non-locality.
The violation of Bell's inequalities does not imply non-locality. In
fact, the violation of Bell's inequality is a prediction of QM which
when describing the dynamics with a physical Hamiltonian, is a
manifestly local theory.
But it has a state which shares the polarization of the two particles,
|x1 x2>+|y1 y2> The particles are at different places when they are
measured but are sharing a variable...that's the non-locality. That's
why Bell's theorem can't be violated by a shared hidden variable.
One can create such non-local states but that doesn't require anything
non-local in the dynamical laws, and indeed, the known dynamical laws
are of a local nature. So, all the non-local effects are due to common
cause effects.
That's what is ruled out by violation of Bell's inequality.
Brent
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b6896eb5-1128-47f6-98cf-059faf97c612%40gmail.com.
