Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
*Interesting post. TY. I think the argument about whether mathematics or physics better represents "real" knowledge is fruitless to pursue. I do know that mathematical theorems, once proved, are set in stone. OTOH, physical theories evolve over time, and without mathematics the huge progress we have made would have been impossible. Could we have QM without mathematical operators and differential equations? ... I don't think String Theory "insists" on any number of universes. The number you cite below just represents the possible number of universes in the landscape. If time is infinite, I agree that all would have, or will be realized. ... I was aware that overwhelmingly irrational numbers can't be computed and therefore may not be relevant to physics. But so what? Much of mathematics is relevant, in fact necessary. AG* On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 9:58:20 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, > > wrote: > > >> *> How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* >> > > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster > than light and the future can't effect the past. > > Realism means a property of something exists in just one state even if is > not being observed, for example a unmeasured electron is either spin up or > spin down we just don't know which one because we haven't measured it yet, > Realism means it is never a mixture of spin up and spin down. > > >> *> As I wrote, and you ignored, the constituents of the baseball are in >> entangled states,* >> > *with their neighbors to create the macro "object",* >> > > Yes, and with emphasis on "states" not "state". All the particles in a > baseball are not entangled with each other or with the same object in the > environment, if they were the atoms would lose their individual identity > and the baseball would become a > Bose–Einstein condensate > . > > *> the overall "state" of the object -- if one could be defined -- does >> NOT contradict localism or realism* >> > > If it's local and realistic and if Bell's Inequality is violated (and we > know experimentally that it is) then we know it can't be deterministic. Yes > you might want to have all 3, Einstein wanted that too but since Einstein's > day experiment has proved you just can't have determinism locality and > realism. And that means there is no getting around it, quantum physics is > weird. > > > >> >> >>> Ignore it? I didn't ignore it I'm the one who pointed it out! Three >>> entirely different theories in 3 apparently different areas of physics all >>> were forced to come to the exact same conclusion, the Multiverse must exist. >>> >> >> *> I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. >> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some >> world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence >> to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".* >> > > The MWI people don't have to assume anything because > there is absolutely nothing in t > he Schrodinger > Wave E > quation > about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that > somehow it does. > > >> *> Same situation in String Theory; no "must"; simply other possible >> universes in the landscape.* >> > > String Theory doesn't insist on an infinite number of other universes, > but it does insist on at least 10^500 of them and there are only about > 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. > > > *> Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some >> outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million other >> universe? * >> > > I could be wrong but that would be my best guess. > > *> Seems ridiculous to me.* >> > > Fine, but keep in mind reality is not obligated to pay attention to your > personal incredulity. It would certainly be odd but odd is not the same > thing as a logical self contradiction, and we already know whatever turns > out to be true it will be odd. > > *> Essentially, all calculations and predictions in physics are >> approximations. * >> > > Is a mathematical model an approximation of a physical hurricane or is > the physical hurricane an approximation of the mathematical model? I think > the physics is more fundamental than the mathematics. > > > >> *> Can't a Turing Machine calculate some rational numbers in finite >> time,* >> > > Certainly a Turing Machine can calculate some rational numbers in finite > time but very very very few; and it can calculate almost none of the Real > Numbers even in infinite time. > > >> *> Physics uses approximations regularly, always. Does this mean >> mathematical knowledge is meaningless; just a "story"?* >> > > > Mathematicians are always saying mathematics is a language, well English > is a language too and you can use English to write both fiction and > nonfiction, you can even write fant
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is > astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you > have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is > spatially infinite at that time? TIA, AG > >> > If it's infinite and you multiply it by an infinitesimal scale factor...it > can still be infinite. > > Brent > I could be fixated on an erroneous pov, but if the observable and unobservable regions obey the same laws of physics, and the former is getting progressively smaller as we go back in time -- both as spatial extent and as space-time -- for either to be infinite at t=0, via tunneling or whatever, seems to suggest a discontinuity. Or going the other way, from infinite at the tunneling or creation "moment", to finite in virtually no time duration, is equally hard to process. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially infinite at that time? TIA, AG If it's infinite and you multiply it by an infinitesimal scale factor...it can still be infinite. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: And exactly what is it that you claim has not been proved in MW theory? Bell's theorem applies there too: it has never been proved that it does not. Bell was no fool: he did not like MWI, but if that provided an escape from his theorem, he would have addressed the issue. The fact that he did not suggests strongly that you do not have a case. Bell’s theory applies in the sense that the experimental results would be the same in MWI, but the FTL weirdness is eliminated. This is because in MWI the experimenter can’t prepare a random state, What do you mean by this? Are you claiming that there are no free variables in MWI? Some form of superdeterminism? But for Bell-type experiments in MWI, or elsewhere, one does not have to prepare a random state -- one just prepares a singlet state consisting of two entangled particles. Nothing random about it. since there is no true randomness, and therefore there is no question of the entangled particle magically knowing what has happened at the other end. Bell thought, apparently, that MWI weirdness was more weird than FTL weirdness and rejected MWI even though it solved this problem. Bell actually thought that Bohm's deterministic, though non-local, theory was a better bet. But you have not addressed my counterexample to your contention that MWI eliminates non-locality. The time-like measurement of the two entangled particles clearly requires non-locality in order to conserve angular momentum. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:51:57 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local >>> operator" in the context of the singlet state. * >>> >>> >>> A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two >>> particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. >>> >> >> >> *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the >> possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, >> so I have no idea what you mean. * >> >> >> I defined it as operating on only one of the particles, not in terms of >> location. I just added location remark as explanation of why it's called >> "non-local". >> > > Isn't an operator generic in the sense that it tells you what's possible > to measure, without discriminating between the particles it is operating ON? > > > No. > > >> >> *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, >> when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include >> both the observable and unobservable regions * >> >> >> Yes. >> > > TY. FWIW, I posed this question since the physics of the unobservable > region is almost certainly identical to the observable region since it is > just the geometry of the expansion that distinguishes them. That being the > case, if the observable region is astronomically small as close to t=0 as > possible using GR, then so is the unobservable region, leading to the > conclusion that the ENTIRE universe (here we're not discussing Multiverse) > was NOT spatially infinite when it came into being, to best of our > knowledge. Do you agree with my conclusion? AG > > > No. > If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially infinite at that time? TIA, AG > > 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet state. * A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, so I have no idea what you mean. * I defined it as operating on only one of the particles, not in terms of location. I just added location remark as explanation of why it's called "non-local". Isn't an operator generic in the sense that it tells you what's possible to measure, without discriminating between the particles it is operating ON? No. * * *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include both the observable and unobservable regions * Yes. TY. FWIW, I posed this question since the physics of the unobservable region is almost certainly identical to the observable region since it is just the geometry of the expansion that distinguishes them. That being the case, if the observable region is astronomically small as close to t=0 as possible using GR, then so is the unobservable region, leading to the conclusion that the ENTIRE universe (here we're not discussing Multiverse) was NOT spatially infinite when it came into being, to best of our knowledge. Do you agree with my conclusion? AG No. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: > > * > I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. >> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some >> world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an >> insistence to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".* >> > > The MWI people don't have to assume anything because > there is absolutely nothing in t > he Schrodinger > Wave E > quation > about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that > somehow it does. > > > It's not just an assumption. It's an observation. The SE alone didn't > explain the observation, hence the additional ideas. > > Brent > *Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name indicates, based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be measured, in this case in other worlds. I reject this hypothesis. What I do concede is that in the case of the Multiverse of String Theory, if time is infinite and the possible universes finite -- 10^500 -- all possible universes will be, or have been, realized. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" >> in the context of the singlet state. * >> >> >> A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two >> particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. >> > > > *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the > possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, > so I have no idea what you mean. * > > > I defined it as operating on only one of the particles, not in terms of > location. I just added location remark as explanation of why it's called > "non-local". > Isn't an operator generic in the sense that it tells you what's possible to measure, without discriminating between the particles it is operating ON? > > > *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, > when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include > both the observable and unobservable regions * > > > Yes. > TY. FWIW, I posed this question since the physics of the unobservable region is almost certainly identical to the observable region since it is just the geometry of the expansion that distinguishes them. That being the case, if the observable region is astronomically small as close to t=0 as possible using GR, then so is the unobservable region, leading to the conclusion that the ENTIRE universe (here we're not discussing Multiverse) was NOT spatially infinite when it came into being, to best of our knowledge. Do you agree with my conclusion? AG > > 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: * > I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".* The MWI people don't have to assume anything because there is absolutely nothing in t he Schrodinger Wave E quation about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that somehow it does. It's not just an assumption. It's an observation. The SE alone didn't explain the observation, hence the additional ideas. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet state. * A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, so I have no idea what you mean. * I defined it as operating on only one of the particles, not in terms of location. I just added location remark as explanation of why it's called "non-local". * * *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include both the observable and unobservable regions * Yes. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, wrote: > *> How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster than light and the future can't effect the past. Realism means a property of something exists in just one state even if is not being observed, for example a unmeasured electron is either spin up or spin down we just don't know which one because we haven't measured it yet, Realism means it is never a mixture of spin up and spin down. > *> As I wrote, and you ignored, the constituents of the baseball are in > entangled states,* > *with their neighbors to create the macro "object",* > Yes, and with emphasis on "states" not "state". All the particles in a baseball are not entangled with each other or with the same object in the environment, if they were the atoms would lose their individual identity and the baseball would become a Bose–Einstein condensate . *> the overall "state" of the object -- if one could be defined -- does > NOT contradict localism or realism* > If it's local and realistic and if Bell's Inequality is violated (and we know experimentally that it is) then we know it can't be deterministic. Yes you might want to have all 3, Einstein wanted that too but since Einstein's day experiment has proved you just can't have determinism locality and realism. And that means there is no getting around it, quantum physics is weird. > >> >> Ignore it? I didn't ignore it I'm the one who pointed it out! Three >> entirely different theories in 3 apparently different areas of physics all >> were forced to come to the exact same conclusion, the Multiverse must exist. >> > > *> I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. > Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some > world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence > to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".* > The MWI people don't have to assume anything because there is absolutely nothing in t he Schrodinger Wave E quation about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that somehow it does. > *> Same situation in String Theory; no "must"; simply other possible > universes in the landscape.* > String Theory doesn't insist on an infinite number of other universes, but it does insist on at least 10^500 of them and there are only about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. *> Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some > outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million other > universe? * > I could be wrong but that would be my best guess. *> Seems ridiculous to me.* > Fine, but keep in mind reality is not obligated to pay attention to your personal incredulity. It would certainly be odd but odd is not the same thing as a logical self contradiction, and we already know whatever turns out to be true it will be odd. *> Essentially, all calculations and predictions in physics are > approximations. * > Is a mathematical model an approximation of a physical hurricane or is the physical hurricane an approximation of the mathematical model? I think the physics is more fundamental than the mathematics. > *> Can't a Turing Machine calculate some rational numbers in finite > time,* > Certainly a Turing Machine can calculate some rational numbers in finite time but very very very few; and it can calculate almost none of the Real Numbers even in infinite time. > *> Physics uses approximations regularly, always. Does this mean > mathematical knowledge is meaningless; just a "story"?* > Mathematicians are always saying mathematics is a language, well English is a language too and you can use English to write both fiction and nonfiction, you can even write fantasy stories in English that violate the laws of physics. Some very abstract modern mathematics may be like Harry Potter stories written in the language of mathematics, entertaining and thought provoking and maybe even poetic but having nothing to do with the physical world. > *> The fact that PI can't be calculated precisely doesn't mean that > irrational numbers, in this case PI, are irrelevant to physics.* > PI is irrational but it is a computable number, you can get arbitrarily close to it by using for example an infinite series; but PI is a oddball, most Real numbers are NOT computable, there is no way to even approximate them so there is no way to specify one and give it a name. In fact if you stuck a infinitely sharp needle at random in the Real number line there is a 100% chance it would hit a non-computable number and a 0% chance it would hit a computable number. There are an infinite number of both sorts of numbers but the computable sort is just countably infinite while the other is continuously infinite, a higher order of infinity. *> Keep in mind that if space-time is continuous, [...]* > If
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates > the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else > has ever produced a valid argument as to how many worlds might restore > locality. > > > But nobody has proved that there is non locality in the MWI. EPR-BELL > proves non-locality apparant in each branch, but the MWI avoids the needs > of action at a distance to explains them. Once Alice and Bob are > space-separated, their identity are independent. It makes no sense to talk > of each of them like if they were related, (unless you correlate them with > a third observer, etc) If they do measurement, some God could see that they > are indeed no more related, but if they decide to come back to place where > they can compared locally their spin, they will always get contact to the > corresponding observer with the well correlated spin. The independent Alice > and Bob will never meet because they can't belong to the same branch of the > multiverse, by the MWI of the singlet state. So Mitra is right. > Although Bertlmann's socks are tyically not working for Bell's violation in > a MONO-universe, it works again in the MWI, applied in this case to the > whole singlet state. > > > Bell has proved non-locality in MWI, every bit as much as in each branch > separately. You appear not to have grasped the significance of the scenario > I have argued carefully. Alice and Bob are not space-like separated in the > scenario I outlined. Alice and Bob are together in the same laboratory when > the second measurement is made. They are necessarily in the same world > before, and branch in together according to Bob's result. Your mumbo-jumbo > about them only being able to meet in appropriate matching branches does > not work here, because they are always in the same branch. And there is no > reason to suppose that their results in some of those branches do not > violate conservation of angular momentum. > > > I have no clue what you mean. The singlet state guaranties the > conservation of angular momentum in all worlds. The singlet state describes > an infinity of "worlds", and in each of them there is conservation of > angular momentum, and it has a local common cause origin, the same in all > worlds. > > > But it's not a sufficient 'hidden' variable to explain the space-like > correlation of measurements. > > > If the the explanation is based on hidden variable, per branch, then there > will be non-locality. But the many universe are not really hidden variable > in the sense of EPR-Bell's, which assumes Alice and Bob have the same > identity and keep it, when they do the space-like measurement, but it seems > to me that this is a wrong interpretation of the singlet state when we > suppress any possible collapse. If Alice and Bob are space-like separated, > they will later only access to the Bob and Alice they will locally be able > to interact with, and those are "new" people, not the original couple. > > > But that's the point of Bruce's version in which the measurements are > time-like. Alice and Bob will have continuity of identity and, as he > argues, the explanation for the correlation of results being stronger than > classical must be the same. > > > But there are the same. The singlet state explains this too. The mystery > is in the apparent space-like separation, where it looks like a physical > action at a distance plays some role, except that this has not been proved > in the MW theory. > > > Again you appeal to the 'apparent space-like separation'. As Brent said, > the point of my time-like example was that there is no space-like > separation at any time, so that escape is not available to you. > > And exactly what is it that you claim has not been proved in MW theory? > Bell's theorem applies there too: it has never been proved that it does > not. Bell was no fool: he did not like MWI, but if that provided an escape > from his theorem, he would have addressed the issue. The fact that he did > not suggests strongly that you do not have a case. > Bell’s theory applies in the sense that the experimental results would be the same in MWI, but the FTL weirdness is eliminated. This is because in MWI the experimenter can’t prepare a random state, since there is no true randomness, and therefore there is no question of the entangled particle magically knowing what has happened at the other end. Bell thought, apparently, that MWI weirdness was more weird than FTL weirdness and rejected MWI even though it solved this problem. >
Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM
On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" > in the context of the singlet state. * > > > A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two > particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. > *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, so I have no idea what you mean. * *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include both the observable and unobservable regions even though, obviously, we can only make observations on the former? * *TIA, AG* > > *Can you write the basis and possibly the operator in which the singlet > state, which I think is pure, is an eigenfunction? AG * > > > Maybe Bruce can do this more elegantly, but I think it would be, > > > > Where A and B refere to Alice and Bob and the subscript indicates they > detected the particle as spin up or down relative to the SG set at angle > phi_i. And the sum is over all possible angles. So the operator should > return 1 if the angular momentum is conserved (it's a singlet state) and 0 > otherwise, but doesn't actually tell you what the spin direction was. > > 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
