non locality ?

[interested]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

That's correct. 

I'm not sure what you're looking for.

I was working around the idea. Can entangled particles be manipulated after entanglement, to produce different results from other entangled particles produced from the same source at a different time that have not been manipulated. 

What I was looking for was something that can not be explained away easily, that scientists are still unsure about or do not fully understand, non locality that might be worth debating.

Basically I was asking the same question as in the OP which has been answered by various people satisfactorily. Is there anything to any of the ideas put about that information is exchanged FTL under any circumstances. Ie after the particle has been entangled can a photon be manipulated to produce an immediate response on the other., which would be spooky

 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

I was working around the idea. Can entangled particles be manipulated after entanglement, to produce different results from other entangled particles produced from the same source at a different time that have not been manipulated. 

If you produce a different correlation it will be because you affected the entanglement. If you don't affect the entanglement, you will get the same correlation.

6 minutes ago, interested said:

What I was looking for was something that can not be explained away easily, that scientists are still unsure about or do not fully understand, non locality that might be worth debating.

 There's plenty that scientists don't understand. I'm not sure what a debate will show, since we don't understand these things.

6 minutes ago, interested said:

Basically I was asking the same question as in the OP which has been answered by various people satisfactorily.

Okay...

6 minutes ago, interested said:

Is there anything to any of the ideas put about that information is exchanged FTL under any circumstances. Ie after the particle has been entangled can a photon be manipulated to produce an immediate response on the other., which would be spooky

No. There are no known nonlocal interactions, as has already been stated.

[interested]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

If you produce a different correlation it will be because you affected the entanglement. If you don't affect the entanglement, you will get the same correlation.

 There's plenty that scientists don't understand. I'm not sure what a debate will show, since we don't understand these things.

Okay...

No. There are no known nonlocal interactions, as has already been stated.

When looking at QFT the double slit experiment might demonstrate non locality perhaps.

How does one define the boundaries of a wave moving towards a double slit, and which gap does it pass through. 

If any one is interested here is a link I am currently reading((possibly pop science) which is to me very interesting and explains non locality in terms of fields including the double slit experiment. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

I am finding the boundary conditions of the fields a bit of problem to grasp at the moment. Its like they are everywhere all at once and then instantly collapse manifesting them selves as a particle on contact with a receptor.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

When looking at QFT the double slit experiment might demonstrate non locality perhaps.

How?

1 hour ago, interested said:

How does one define the boundaries of a wave moving towards a double slit, and which gap does it pass through. 

You don't know what gap it passes through, and you don't define the boundaries of the wave. 

 

[interested]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

How?

You don't know what gap it passes through, and you don't define the boundaries of the wave. 

 

Page 12 of this link https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf IV. THE 2-SLIT EXPERIMENT 

 

All things are fields which cannot be described locally until they collapse and give of the energy as quanta (e=hf ) behaving like particles. The boundaries of the fields cannot be defined locally, is a little confusing, is it like saying the fields exist everywhere until detected when they instantly collapse and produce a quantaa of energy on the detector.   

Edited April 27, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

11 hours ago, interested said:

Page 12 of this link https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf IV. THE 2-SLIT EXPERIMENT 

This confirms what I said.

How does this explain non-locality?

 

[interested]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

This confirms what I said.

How does this explain non-locality?

 

Einsteins theories of relativity, are field based theories. Quantizing the field does not change the nature of the field.

I attempted a little summary above, which I was not sure about, but after reading a little more, fields can not be described locally until they collapse and produce the effect seen in the double slit experriment, the fields can and do pass through both slits in the double slit experiment, they can not be defined locally until they are absorbed and produce Quanta of energy,  Of course there are different explanations such as QM etc, however the field is fundamental to all things in the universe at least according to QFT. 

A field can not be defined locally and entanglement can be described as a non local effect, ie the collapse of the field is instantaneous on detection producing a localized quanta of energy. Two particles act as one entangled particle separated by distance until they are detected, upon which point they decohere and are no longer entangled.

The concept of non locality of the field allows all things in the universe to be connected to a certain extent via the underlying field. This concept of connected-ness seems apparent in spin space theories, also in the membrane concept of string theory and even in some religions, pantheism perhaps (sexed up atheism according to dawkins). Whilst things can be explained probalistically with out looking at the underlying cause, fields give an underlying cause, 

At least that is what I think at the moment. 

Go ahead change my mind (make my day  )

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, interested said:

Quantizing the field does not change the nature of the field.

So quantum theory has no differences at all from classical theory? That sounds implausible.

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, interested said:

 A field can not be defined locally

It can't?

50 minutes ago, interested said:

and entanglement can be described as a non local effect, ie the collapse of the field is instantaneous on detection producing a localized quanta of energy. 

The field collapses?

 

[interested]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So quantum theory has no differences at all from classical theory? That sounds implausible.

WTF. They should ultimately agree.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It can't?

The field collapses?

 

So we agree

[swansont]

4 hours ago, interested said:

WTF. They should ultimately agree.

They don't. That's why we have QM - because classical theory fails.

Quote

So we agree

What? I questioned your claim. That's kinda the opposite of agreeing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

They don't. That's why we have QM - because classical theory fails.

What? I questioned your claim. That's kinda the opposite of agreeing.

Non classical agreement...

[interested]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

They don't. That's why we have QM - because classical theory fails.

I was not arguing otherwise, 

Strange deliberately misunderstood what I wrote, which I thought was quite clear. I suspect it was another attempt at a strawman discussion. 

Non Locality is best covered I think from a QFT point of view, it even makes sense of the double slit experiment. At what point does QFT fail and need QM to come to the rescue?

What part of what I WROTE were you questioning. 

Does anyone have a good pdf on QFT to hand and perhaps one on QM also? 

Edited April 29, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

I was not arguing otherwise, 

Strange deliberately misunderstood what I wrote, which I thought was quite clear. I suspect it was another attempt at a strawman discussion. 

That's a rather strong accusation, and posted without evidence. Your posts are often not very clear, and "I was clear" is not a justification for the accusation.

Quote

Non Locality is best covered I think from a QFT point of view, it even makes sense of the double slit experiment. At what point does QFT fail and need QM to come to the rescue?

What part of what I WROTE were you questioning.

I though that was clear. The part where you said "A field can not be defined locally" and "the collapse of the field is instantaneous"

I questioned those statements and then you said we agree. Which is it?

 

[interested]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

"A field can not be defined locally" and "the collapse of the field is instantaneous"

I questioned those statements and then you said we agree. Which is it?

It is as I wrote. A field can not be defined locally. The collapse of a field on measurement is instantaneous. Both of which are described in the link I posted above. I also have other short papers all along the same lines. Do you disagree with the paper I posted above. Do you disagree that the double slit experiment and non locality is better explained using QFT than any other extant theory. 

On 4/27/2018 at 11:15 AM, swansont said:

You don't know what gap it passes through, and you don't define the boundaries of the wave. 

I know this

What is your take on non locality and the double slit experiment? 

At the end of the day are you a QM person or QFT person or some other?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

It is as I wrote. A field can not be defined locally.

Restating this doesn't make it true. What is nonlocal about an electric field?

1 hour ago, interested said:

The collapse of a field on measurement is instantaneous. Both of which are described in the link I posted above.

The link is a paper which is not exactly mainstream. The author is making his case, but admits at the outset that "Physicists are still unable to reach consensus" on the various topics of discussion. Meaning you can't take it as a given that what he says is acknowledged to be true.

1 hour ago, interested said:

I also have other short papers all along the same lines. Do you disagree with the paper I posted above. Do you disagree that the double slit experiment and non locality is better explained using QFT than any other extant theory. 

I have disagreements with the paper, yes.

1 hour ago, interested said:

I know this

And yet you stated the opposite, and not for the first time. This is a source of frustration in having a discussion with you.

1 hour ago, interested said:

What is your take on non locality and the double slit experiment? 

My take is not the topic of the thread.

1 hour ago, interested said:

At the end of the day are you a QM person or QFT person or some other?

Two problems here. One, QFT is a quantum theory, so this is not an either/or question, and two, it would meaningless to ask someone if they were a quantum person or a classical person when it came to physics, which is analogous to what you are asking here.  

[interested]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Restating this doesn't make it true. What is nonlocal about an electric field?

The link is a paper which is not exactly mainstream. The author is making his case, but admits at the outset that "Physicists are still unable to reach consensus" on the various topics of discussion. Meaning you can't take it as a given that what he says is acknowledged to be true.

I have disagreements with the paper, yes.

And yet you stated the opposite, and not for the first time. This is a source of frustration in having a discussion with you.

My take is not the topic of the thread.

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Two problems here. One, QFT is a quantum theory, so this is not an either/or question, and two, it would meaningless to ask someone if they were a quantum person or a classical person when it came to physics, which is analogous to what you are asking here.  

Are you a quantum particle person or a quantum field person.  The article I posted argues everything can be explained by fields, including non locality, with out the need to refer to particles.

By not exactly mainstream what do you mean. Do you agree non locality exists. I am after information and opinions not  giving answers. 

Various earlier responses indicated non locality did not exist and could satisfactorily be explained away with local explanations. I asked if anything else might be better explained via non locality, and then suggested the double slit experiment as an example, and backed it up with the paper you have now read. 

Did you enjoy the paper ?

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, interested said:

 

Are you a quantum particle person or a quantum field person.  The article I posted argues everything can be explained by fields, including non locality, with out the need to refer to particles.

I would say I am a particle person, and the article agrees with that. Particle vs fields is constrained largely to nuclear and accelerator-based physics. Which is irrelevant, and the point is a distraction.

I don't use QM or relativity to work a problem where Newtonian physics works well. Similarly, invoking fields is unnecessary unless you are working problems in areas the author describes. Any discussion about the true nature of reality means one has stepped outside of physics and into philosophy.

 

57 minutes ago, interested said:

By not exactly mainstream what do you mean. Do you agree non locality exists. I am after information and opinions not  giving answers. 

I explained what I meant. Perhaps you could clarify your question.

57 minutes ago, interested said:

Various earlier responses indicated non locality did not exist and could satisfactorily be explained away with local explanations. I asked if anything else might be better explained via non locality, and then suggested the double slit experiment as an example, and backed it up with the paper you have now read. 

That's not a fair assessment of the responses. Nobody said non-locality doesn't exist. It obviously does. People said that non-local interactions don't exist. 

57 minutes ago, interested said:

Did you enjoy the paper ?

Given its tenuous nature, and that it seemed to be cherry-picking some examples to support its claims, not really. If the answer were as clear as he claimed, there would be a consensus, and as the author himself points out, there is not. 

[interested]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

I would say I am a particle person, and the article agrees with that. Particle vs fields is constrained largely to nuclear and accelerator-based physics. Which is irrelevant, and the point is a distraction.

I don't use QM or relativity to work a problem where Newtonian physics works well. Similarly, invoking fields is unnecessary unless you are working problems in areas the author describes. Any discussion about the true nature of reality means one has stepped outside of physics and into philosophy.

 

I explained what I meant. Perhaps you could clarify your question.

That's not a fair assessment of the responses. Nobody said non-locality doesn't exist. It obviously does. People said that non-local interactions don't exist. 

Given its tenuous nature, and that it seemed to be cherry-picking some examples to support its claims, not really. If the answer were as clear as he claimed, there would be a consensus, and as the author himself points out, there is not. 

The paper does not agree with what you claim. It states all things can be explained by fields. They are not irrelevant when discussing non locality.

I understand given a set of tools to do a calculation, we must use the best one for the job. Newtons equations are more than satisfactory in my work.

My grammar is getting worse by the day, I meant to say I am asking questions not attempting to give answers.

Would you describe quantum teleportation as a local or non local interaction.

The fact that there is no consensus even among people that claim to know their subject suggests that keeping an open mind on the subject is essential. 

Having read the paper a couple of times I found the explanation ref non locality and the double slit experiment plausible. Not being an expert what cherries have I missed.

Before the bigbang or inside a BH space time is not really defined. Non Local Quantum fields must have existed within this undefined region. Clearly space exists outside off or alongside Black holes, could this undefined space containing only fields still exist and maybe cause things like zero pint energy?   

[Eise]

30 minutes ago, interested said:

Would you describe quantum teleportation as a local or non local interaction.

It was repeatedly said to you that it was repeatedly said to you that there are no non-local interactions. So stop asking.

31 minutes ago, interested said:

The fact that there is no consensus even among people that claim to know their subject suggests that keeping an open mind on the subject is essential. 

No consensus? I think all nearly all physicists agree that there only are non-local correlations. It follows directly from the formalism of QM (and QFT is simply the most modern form of QM), and Bell-like experiments have shown that QM is correct in this respect.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

The paper does not agree with what you claim. It states all things can be explained by fields. They are not irrelevant when discussing non locality.

You have missed the point.

All mechanics can be explained with quantum mechanics, too. Relativity can be applied to a block sliding down an inclined plane. But it's unnecessary, and often makes the solutions much harder. In physics you use the best model that applies to your problem. Fields are not always (or perhaps not usually) the best model for a given problem.

And this isn't what the paper is discussing. It's leaning into metaphysics, and cherry-picking to make the case, at which point I don't really care anymore.

1 hour ago, interested said:

I understand given a set of tools to do a calculation, we must use the best one for the job. Newtons equations are more than satisfactory in my work.

Which is what I claimed, and is not contradicted by the paper.

1 hour ago, interested said:

 Would you describe quantum teleportation as a local or non local interaction.

 

Teleportation involves a local interaction. You have to have a classical channel in order to teleport the state of a particle.

 

[Mordred]

18 hours ago, Eise said:

It was repeatedly said to you that it was repeatedly said to you that there are no non-local interactions. So stop asking.

No consensus? I think all nearly all physicists agree that there only are non-local correlations. It follows directly from the formalism of QM (and QFT is simply the most modern form of QM), and Bell-like experiments have shown that QM is correct in this respect.

 

+1 for highlighting the term correlation...

@ interested I want you to think about the folliwing.

The definition of a field [latex]\mathcal{f}_{x}=x_n[/latex] where f is some function and the subscript n denotes a coordinate basis ie [latex] (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(ct,x,y,z)[/latex]

A field is any collection of values or functions assigned under a geometric basis. It is an arbitrary abstract device. Keep that in mind when reading the Hobbs paper...

 Next  I would look up the definition of correlation function under statistical mechanics to better understand Bell's experiments...

Edited May 2, 2018 by Mordred

[jajrussel]

I have watched a few videos and read a couple of articles and this thread? Maybe I'm missing something two particles are said to be entangled. One will always be spin up while the other is spin down. They move of a distance arbitrary. We try to measure their spin as close to the same time as is possible and find that if the one we measure is spin up the other is spin down, and vice versa.

Whatam I missing? What makes it spooky? What action is actually happening? Is it that there should have been sufficient particle interactions they they shouldn't still at the time of measure have different spins? I obviously don't know enough about the subject. If spins are constantly changing they don't mention that fact in what I've read or watched. It might seem spooky if they do change, but it might also suggest more? Like a rhythm of interaction.

This learning piecemeal is a little difficult because I keep getting distracted. Is there an article or video that explains why it's spooky? Right now it is like my name is Joe and my friend's name is Bob and no matter where we are whenever someone ask my name is Joe then compare data with others, yep his name it turns out is Bob.

Now if we made a pact to switch names Everytime someone asked our name it might be kinda spooky if two researchers find that when one responds Joe their notes showed that at the exact same time the other responded Bob. Yep this might be spooky, or at the least extremely odd.

Nothing I've read, or watched so far has suggested why something  spooky is happening. The biggest mystery to me seems to be why is it spooky? Where exactly is this action at a distance?

Edited May 2, 2018 by jajrussel
Spelling and weird Gboard inputs.

[interested]

41 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Whatam I missing? What makes it spooky? What action is actually happening? Is it that there should have been sufficient particle interactions they they shouldn't still at the time of measure have different spins? I obviously don't know enough about the subject. If spins are constantly changing they don't mention that fact in what I've read or watched. It might seem spooky if they do change, but it might also suggest more? Like a rhythm of interaction.

You are not missing anything, and as has been pointed out and accepted, most if not all things can be explained via local interactions. (aflip of the coin) . There are however a few discrepancies arising from instantaneous wave function collapse(FTL) as I pointed out in the double slit experiment as mentioned in the paper which swanson disregards. 

The fact of the matter is that space is not just x,y,z,t space, at the very small scale it is dynamic. A mathematical model of the universe produces a very smooth idealised version of the world.

Instantaneous wave collapse(how) space(how many dimensions) is there an extra dimension that may have existed before a big bang, ? 

@Mordred I do understand functions, and correlation etc, I have an above good understanding of mathematics. I also have a couple of technical degrees to back it up. I read and note most of what you write on the forum, I will now go away and have a read of Bells experiments to see what you are referencing. My degrees are not in physics, nor are they in philosophy so at this stage I am not sure how Bells theoreoms come into my interests.

Currently I want to know more about what space is. Is it just space time, does it have extra non spacial dimensions allowing instantaneous wave function collapse, what existed before the big bang (if it ever happened). How is space defined inside a blackhole, how was it defined before a big bang. Could etc etc etc?????? 

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I have watched a few videos and read a couple of articles and this thread? Maybe I'm missing something two particles are said to be entangled. One will always be spin up while the other is spin down. They move of a distance arbitrary. We try to measure their spin as close to the same time as is possible and find that if the one we measure is spin up the other is spin down, and vice versa.

Whatam I missing? What makes it spooky?

You can tell, via experiment, that the one you measure as e.g. spin-up was not spin-up the whole time (the measurement statistics show this if you do the experiment a bunch of times, measuring along different directions), meaning that the precise state is determined only when you make the measurement.

AND if you do this with the particles separated, there is no way for them to have communicated their state at a speed limited by c

Quote

 

This learning piecemeal is a little difficult because I keep getting distracted. Is there an article or video that explains why it's spooky? Right now it is like my name is Joe and my friend's name is Bob and no matter where we are whenever someone ask my name is Joe then compare data with others, yep his name it turns out is Bob.

We have threads where this (or more specifically, why there are no hidden variables) is discussed.

Such as https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/