> In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 > -0400: > Hi, > [snip] >>In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 >> PM >> >>While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in >> a >>higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as >> in >>close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest >>distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are >> separated by a >>given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher >> dimensions >>must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in >> three >>dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their >> separation in >>higher dimensions). >> >>Robin, >> I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least >> square the available space in the universe like going From flatland >> square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and >> dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial >> dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective >> which might complicate the minimal spacing of the "projections" you >> mentioned above. > > That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) > >>Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which >> makes distance meaningless. > > ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters > of > the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you > want to > do with the result. > >>I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) >> properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a >> particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections >> can we push the entanglement holding two particles in "correlation"? A >> physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher >> dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods >> but they would remain at least the same >>distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these >>2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that >> the Chinese have managed to teleport this "correlation" 9.9 miles >> suggests that some mechanism does exist. > > It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the > blue > ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the > same > time, are you then going to conclude that their "wave functions collapsed" > at > the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been > transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of > light??? > > One should not needlessly multiply entities. > > The QM problem here is that a "wave function" is NOT a physical reality. > It is a > mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to > the > best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the > real > physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to > use a > different equation. The wave function is said to "collapse" but all that > collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we > did > previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). > > In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It > is > one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* > of the > state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we > look in > the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/<insert pet name here>.
Hi Robin, It seems that there's more to it than just local hidden variables. Here's the best I've found at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox See "Measurements on an entangled state". And particularly, "Resolving the paradox", "Hidden variables", "Bell's inequality." Although at first sight the easy answer seems to be "QM is an incomplete theory", it seems that QM captures some of the essence of the way reality works, in particular with respect to non-locality/wholeness, and observer effects. Experiments done to test Bell inequalities point to a "statistical strength" of QM that is greater than any theory of local hidden variables. Mauro
