On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which >>>> leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: >>>> >>>> 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects >>>> 2. Measurements have more than one outcome >>>> >>>> In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or >>>> many-world's is true. >>>> >>>> Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant >>> laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears >>> to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) >>> >>> >>> Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's >>> transactional interpretation. >>> >> >> Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional >> interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The >> transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and >> postulates new things outside of standard QM. >> >> >> I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. >> >> >> >> > This table should be updated in that case: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations > > > Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment > would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is > explicitly non-local? > > I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions in several places that it is explicitly non-local: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation > > What are the zig-zags? > > > By "traveling" back in time and then forward a particle can be at two > spacelike separate events. > > > Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter interpretation, neither is FTL. > > >> >> Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain >> all observations in QM. >> >> >> But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in >> repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating >> Bell's inequality - in the same world. >> > > Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080 > > > Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden variables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett. As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leaves two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one outcome. When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before, leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is split separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to the other, creating four superposed states. > > > >> The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not >> local in spacetime. >> >> > Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( > http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or > something else? > > > No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution > of the SWE over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in > general is not localized in spacetime. > Locality (as I've used the term) refers to the idea that things are only affected by their immediate environment. I think you are speaking of something else when you speak of being able to locate it somewhere in space-time. > > > > >> >> Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe >> is small and that they are unique? >> >> >>> There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* >>> the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. >>> >> >> Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it >> seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced >> (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be >> determined by something operating external to that mind. >> >> I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism >> is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by >> a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity >> limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum >> measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the >> observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be >> repeating an on interval of 2^n or less. >> >> >> There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if >> hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole. >> > > What if we have two remote locations measuring entangled particles, and > whether they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on > the i-th binary digit of Pi at one locations, and the i-th binary digit of > Euler's constant at the other location? How can hyper-determinism force > the digits of Pi or e? > > > ?? I think the i-th digit pi and the i-th digit of e are already > determined. > > Yes, but they are determined by math, not this hyper-determinism concept which I understand is a hypothesized physical process. You said hyperdeterminism means experimenters only think they can make independent choices, but what if an experimenter chooses to rely on the digits of some constant number to inform his or her choices in the experiment? Does hyper-determinism decide not only that the experimenter chooses to use Pi, but also each of the resulting steps the experimenter makes when using Pi as his/her guide? Jason > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
