>> 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.
This is good reading also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism Btw, it seems I would be with the "Bohm interpretation", which preserves realism but not locality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
