crowded quantum information

[MigL]

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ?

On the question of local versus non-local decoherence 
( because there is no non-local interactions )

Quantum nonlocality does not exist | PNAS

"I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics"

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ?

On the question of local versus non-local decoherence 
( because there is no non-local interactions )

Quantum nonlocality does not exist | PNAS

"I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics"

This is the point that I've been trying to get across for quite a while.

Thank you!!!

[bangstrom]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ?

On the question of local versus non-local decoherence 
( because there is no non-local interactions )

Quantum nonlocality does not exist | PNAS

Two questions. Why would you pick an article from such a sketchy source as a Many-Worlds Interpretation article to support your opinion.

And what is your opinion of the MWI.

I am aware of two cosmologies where non-locality is not possible. One is the Many-Worlds Interpretation MWI and the other is Superdeterminism.

I vaguely recall the nature of these cosmologies, but as I recall, in the MWI when one of a entangled pair of particles is measured to be in the spin-up position, there is an identical entanglement in one of the many alternate universes -remote from our own- where an identical particle is measured to be in the spin-down position. So one particle is spin-up and another is spin-down but in alternate universes.

I also clearly recall an article by John Cramer in which he thoroughly trashed the Many Worlds Interpretation.

In the Superdeterminism cosmology, the present and past are like a movie running in the projector and our reality is the scene that is playing out so there is nothing we can to change events since our reality is that movie.

[joigus]

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Two questions. Why would you pick an article from such a sketchy source as a Many-Worlds Interpretation article to support your opinion.

I think you missed the most important part of MigL's post:

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ?

 

[NTuft]

On 9/12/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:

There is a precise orientation where one electron, and likely under the influence of other electrons nearby, can share a common Schroedinger wave function with another electrons such that strong interactions can occur with the result that remote electrons can function as if side by side no matter what the distance between them. That is entanglement.

Because the interaction is instant and non-local, there is no time between the signal and its reception to alter the orientation of a detected result so that it is anything other than anti-correlated.

Because the entangled electrons are found at different locations on the light cone, we observe a light related time delay. Our observations have a “space like” time delay because the observed events are simultaneous but separated by space rather than happening at different times, in which case the delay would be “time like.”

Is that entanglement, or is it non-locality? I read the thread to come to that non-locality implies faster than light information exchange. My question is, if one of two entangled electrons undergoes an interaction/evolution to flip , is this change conducted to the other electron to induce a change in ,or , supraluminally? Or is the "strict" entanglement broken, and now needing consideration as part of the density matrix alluded to since it is not a closed or unperturbed system and has "evolved"?

On 9/14/2022 at 4:38 AM, joigus said:

Then you certainly don't understand the question. 12√(|↑↓〉−|↓↑〉) independently of the space-time factor of the state. In fact, the space-time factor of the state is completely omitted. Don't you find that peculiar?

No telling if it's the suggestion at play, but yes I found it peculiar; isn't that pointing at the entanglement having a non-local character? I need to re-read, I can figure, I did not understand the whole discussion.

On 9/14/2022 at 2:46 PM, bangstrom said:

This appears to be an overly broad a generalization that may apply to entangled particles or entangled particles in quantum computers but normally particles have a largely predictable nature otherwise there would be nothing but chaos. All electrons may look alike but Nature at least "knows" where they are.

Having recently viewed Sean (MWI) Carroll's, The Big Picture: From the Big Bang to the Meaning of Life, I know that Nature is "knowing" macroscopic objects easily, coherently, but I do not know if Nature is "knowing" quantum objects implicitly, rather, perhaps we have to make the measurements of quantum Nature to determine these uknown knowns. I do not think I understood indeterminancy, as I conceive of the observables as having a value capable of being described but that it is in superposition until actually observed; that the state(CSCO n,l,m_s,m_l?) was in existence  before observation but was indeterminate only insofar as it was unknown.

 

On 9/15/2022 at 3:49 PM, joigus said:

If φ(x,t) is a scalar (number-valued) field on the real line, φ˙ is its time derivative, dφdx its spatial derivative, and f is an arbitrary numeric function, which one of these models is non-local, which one has propagation at finite speed, which one has no propagation at all, and for which one it depends on some non-specified conditions?

 

φ˙=f(ddx)φ

 

φ˙=f(x,t)

 

φ˙=f(φ)

 

φ˙=dφdx+f(x,t)

I can't get the math in here properly, in fact my formatting is now screwed up, too, which I'm sure is symbolic or an omen of some sort, but I want to attach -> the 1-4 propositions to the 1-4 equations, if I can think of a supporting reason.

4.->1.,2.,3.,4. since you have an arbitrary function they all have non-specified conditions

1.->1. equating time derivative to a function acting on spatial derivative ->  non-local on the rt. side since you've d/dx spatial dimension to be acted upon by f before equality

Are 2.&3. the same equation? Equating time derivative to  and ? Equating time derivative to function acting on psi, wouldn't the function be d/dt?
2.,3.->2 finite speed of propagation, time derivative of x,t = speed

4. equating time derivative to spatial derivative plus function acting on psi. function needs to effectuate to  -  on (x,t). here I'll say no propagtion as I think it's just a time point you're getting with dpsi/dx? 

Let me know what you have to say, I presume there is some trick or illogicality you've made to make a point after trying the workup. Then afterwards you must come help with my math homework, you crank.

Edited September 17, 2022 by NTuft

[bangstrom]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

Is that entanglement, or is it non-locality? I read the thread to come to that non-locality implies faster than light information exchange. My question is, if one of two entangled electrons undergoes an interaction/evolution to flip , is this change conducted to the other electron to induce a change in ,or , supraluminally?

Entanglement is non-local and non-local interactions are superluminal. That means that two entangled particles can interact instantly as if side-by-side no matter what the distance between them. If one flips up the other instantly flips down and the change takes place superluminally.

This never happens in the macro world. In the macro world, two observers are always have a “space-like” separation. That means that if they are separated by space they are also separated by a c/d amount of time... “spacetime”. This makes superluminal communication at the macro level absolutely impossible.

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

 Or is the "strict" entanglement broken, and now needing consideration as part of the density matrix alluded to since it is not a closed or unperturbed system and has "evolved"?

Once entanglement is lost, the particles become independent of each other so that any change to one has no effect on the other.

 

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

On 9/14/2022 at 6:38 AM, joigus said:

Then you certainly don't understand the question. 12√(|↑↓〉−|↓↑〉) independently of the space-time factor of the state. In fact, the space-time factor of the state is completely omitted. Don't you find that peculiar?

No telling if it's the suggestion at play, but yes I found it peculiar; isn't that pointing at the entanglement having a non-local character? I need to re-read, I can figure, I did not understand the whole discussion.

I don’t understand it either. I think eliminating the space-time factor would make any interaction non-local.

That is what non-locality is- no spacetime between. “joigus” has yet to explain how this is local.

[bangstrom]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

I do not think I understood indeterminancy, as I conceive of the observables as having a value capable of being described but that it is in superposition until actually observed; that the state(CSCO n,l,m_s,m_l?) was in existence  before observation but was indeterminate only insofar as it was unknown.

I like to think indeterminacy as a coin spinning in the air. We cant give it a call until it lands.

I think superposition can better explained but the idea works so I’m not about to dispute it.

 

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

I can't get the math in here properly

It’s an omen but watch for the little black tag at the bottom that reads “ Paste as plain text instead” when you enter a quote.

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

No, because you can't force light to travel faster than c ! 

Entangled particles are connected non-locally and by a likely Schroedinger wave-like connection. The loss of this connection is instant for both particles. This is not a light signal.

[bangstrom]

10 hours ago, joigus said:

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ?

Yes, something is "real" if it can be explained by interpretation. But, what is 'real' for one may not be 'real for another'.

 

On 9/15/2022 at 6:01 PM, MigL said:

"I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics"

Do you know the interpretation of this quote from "MigL"?

If not, read the article or other articles about MWI and see if you agree.

The interpretation holds that entangled particles are in superposition as are their observers. An observer in one world is in superposition with an observer in another world. But in a universe other than our own. When one observer measures his particle to be spin-up, his entangled Doppelganger in another world measures his particle as spin-down.

In an instant, entanglement is lost between both worlds and they become separate entities. However, the events appear entirely local from the perspective of each world.

I like speculation but that is a little over the line for me.

29 minutes ago, Ned said:

The ''rods'' between entangled particles are the quantum fields of the particles that are in essence an extension of the particle into space ! 

The connecting particle fields interact non-locally such that the particles are essentially side-by-side.

 

33 minutes ago, Ned said:

I think you are forgetting that wave energy passing from a to b is what affects any other particle in entanglement .

The connecting waves are not energy bearing so there is no energy passing from a to b. An energy exchange may be possible but that gets into a real can of worms.

[NTuft]

On 9/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, hoola said:

I have heard that is "how it works", but that doesn't explain the internal workings of the black box attributed to the idea. I did get the gell mann video to load, and having seen it several times before,  still leaves one with the impression that "it works this way because it works this way" and not a real explanation, nor much of a hint as to what is in the black box. I can  see one option and that is that quantum entanglements are independent from geometric space notions of distance and act as such being composed of i based mathematical numerical structures, and as so, rely on that structured, yet illogical underpinnings to explain their behavior.

Of course I am in favor of this surly  business. I do not think  is so agreeable as to disappear by the conventional squaring of the modulus to obtain Born's probabilistic interpretation. My understanding of a second-hand interpretation is that Schrödinger did not like this either, because it creates a wave with a variable radial component or the interpretation being that squaring  has removed the azimuthal part which should be there and describing a more coherent or classical wave. 

5 hours ago, Ned said:

The connecting particle fields are all converged , for example the Suns quantum field extends to the earths surface and beyond . Energy is always transferred between particles unless those particles are in an equal state . Because everything in the universe is always in motion , kinetic energy is always produced and this energy is transferable . Quantum fields are dependent to the particle and bounded (fixed) to the particle . If a particle is in spin then the field spins with it .

The sun's quantum field, because it is having photons as force carriers? It sounds like the magnetosphere between the two and heliosphere beyond that. I don't uderstand the unbounded vs. bounded energy, perhaps we are dealing in quanta that in large aggregates seems unbounded.

5 hours ago, Ned said:

It depends on your interpretation of energy because in my interpretation and understanding there is several types of energy that are either bounded energy or unbounded energy . A particle for example would be bounded energy and  free to ''wonder about''.

There is also a difference in the transfer of unbounded energy locally and non-locally . In example two objects touching can exchange energy because they are touching .Non-locally transfer of unbounded energy relies on obstruction of the unbounded energies path . In example the exchange of the Suns unbounded energy with the Earth is simply because the Earth obstructs the path (vector) . There is additional an exchange of bounded energy because the Suns QF touches the Earths surface .

So you're talking about radiant energy from the sun, but I do not think it is so simple in this two-body problem that the earth is catching an incident bit of the radiant energy by being in the... vector's path. Since it is an electrically charged and magnetized body there are induced field lines over which charged particles move. Again I do not think a spinning body spins the field...

 

I fear we've lost the thread or at least I have.

On 9/9/2022 at 1:14 PM, hoola said:

it does seem that there is a faster than light signalling with quantum entanglement issues, but that it cannot transfer any signal other than the basics used to determine a static outcome. Is this because no information can be "added on" to the basic mathematics that determines what is only allowed to happen in normal nature? Could it be possible to artificially "add on" signalling by building unique entangled structures that have a greater bandwidth?

So, @hoola, what would be the utility here? What information is it that we need to desribe systems with by building structures with greater bandwitdth?

  

On 9/9/2022 at 3:07 PM, MigL said:

There is no information transfer faster than the speed of light.
Of any kind.
Period.

i want to quibble with you on this point on behalf of Reg Cahill, having re-done the interferometer experiments as well as results on anisotropy of light through fiber optic cable. If we don't have constant speed of light I would undercut SR by extension and question whether we're discussing faster or slower or variable speed but other than that I am unarmed for this fight.

Edited September 17, 2022 by NTuft

[joigus]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

If we don't have constant speed of light I would undercut SR by extension and question whether we're discussing faster or slower or variable speed but other than that I am unarmed for this fight.

Do not totally despair. You at least mentioned the magic words "CSCO," which are absolutely key to understanding why there is no non-locality here.

CSCO = complete set of commuting observables

The state, written as,

\[ \left|\psi\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle -\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle \right) \]

as commonly used in the literature, does not tell you anything about the position representation --the part of the state that tells you where the probability amplitudes in position are centred around, how spatially-spread they are, etc.

Expert physicists, who write about this for the benefit of laypeople, do not tell you about this, only because the discussion would become too involved technically, and because nothing essential to be discussed depends on it.

Why not? Because the Hamiltonian after the decay commutes with the position spin variables, so the evolution operator, which is an exponential of the Hamiltonian, does too.

So no spin-odds depend on that.

That's why the correlations, bizarre thought they may be, carry no information about locality --or lack thereof-- of the quantum state.

Is that clear, @bangstrom?

If it's not, I can't help you any further. I'm sorry.

https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/fa07/lectures/lecture13_fa07.pdf

Edited September 17, 2022 by joigus
correction+link added

[MigL]

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Do you know the interpretation of this quote from "MigL"?
If not, read the article or other articles about MWI and see if you agree.

There is nothing 'over the line' about the Many Worlds Interpretation; it is just as valid as the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Quantum Mechanics is NOT classical, or macro, mechanics.

[NTuft]

@bangstrom,

I was mistaken, I'd meant to mention, Extracting the Universe from the Wave Function. In this presentation, S. Carroll makes no bones about making many choices along 'branch points' in developing his physics with the understanding that he may be wrong, but to make the work-up he is going to make certain decisions. What is pertinent here to my recall is that he starts the work-up by discussion of and looking at decomposing Hilbert space. From this it follows that small areas of Hilbert spaces are aggregated to a "bulk" space, and as depicted here at this time-point in the video (you'll have to play the video as the display slide is not the one I'm talking about): 

 he's written out, "in QFT, empty space is a busy place. Modes in a nearby regions are highly entangled, and the closer they are to each other, the more entangled they get. Turn this around! Define "nearby" as "highly entangled."

So, a big part of this presentation's work-up is on getting a handle on Hilbert space, using a certain interpretation, and then examining how that plays into local vs. non-local and entanglement. I'd highly recommend the presentation for viewing. It is not much on the MWI part you seem to find objectionable with regards to multi-dimensional dopplegangers, as I recall, but I don't have all the information properly on file.

[hoola]

I guess what I am asking is, can we play god and affect which state entangled particles must appear in by affecting the basic logic structure of i, by an addition of a sort of "viral" effect that doesn't destroy entanglement, as in a form of weak measurements?

[swansont]

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

them. If one flips up the other instantly flips down and the change takes place superluminally.

One issue is that there is no “flip” or “change” since the states are not determined. “flip” implies going from one state to the other. 

The states are determined only when measured.

[hoola]

isn't is a surmise that there is no "flip"?, What if that they are sub-plankian in duration, therefore represent the hidden variables within the fundamental structures of space time?
 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, hoola said:

isn't is a surmise that there is no "flip"?, What if that they are sub-plankian in duration, therefore represent the hidden variables within the fundamental structures of space time?
 

The whole premise of entanglement is based on the fact that the states are undetermined. Local hidden variables have been experimentally ruled out.

[bangstrom]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

There is nothing 'over the line' about the Many Worlds Interpretation; it is just as valid as the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Quantum Mechanics is NOT classical, or macro, mechanics

Naturally, QM is NOT classical.

One provision of Occam’s Razor is that it cautions against the addition of unknown and unobserved entities like Leprechauns or worlds beyond our own to explain a hypothesis.

In this video Sabina Hossenfelder explains why MWI is not science.

“The Multiverse: Science, Religion, or Pseudoscience?”

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sabine+hossenfelder+multiverse

And for @joigus, Hossenfelder cautions against confusing math with reality.

I am a gadget person. My gold standard for truth is if a hypothesis can be reproducibly tested or observed.

The non-local and super superluminal nature of entanglement has been demonstrated at CERN and a number of other laboratories around the world so that works for me.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/03/07/179528/chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-spooky-action-at-a-distance/

 

22 hours ago, NTuft said:

If we don't have constant speed of light I would undercut SR by extension and question whether we're discussing faster or slower or variable speed but other than that I am unarmed for this fight.

I don’t see instant action at a distance as a violation of anything in SR with the single exception of Einstein’s second postulate where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. 

The second postulate is a provisional statement and it does not work as a law of physics. Faster-than-light need not extend into the main body of SR if we recognize c as a dimensional constant of space and time rather than as a speed. The value of c serves as a universal constant for converting between units of distance and units of time. The constant c is essentially the length of a standard meter expressed in seconds.

It is a ratio and not a speed, and in SR, c works perfectly well as dimensional constant but it acts nothing like a speed. This is why c is the same for all observers independent of their own velocities. Nothing can go faster than c because c is a ratio and NOT a speed. Nothing can go faster than a ratio just as nothing can go faster than 1.6 km per mile. If c were a speed c +/- v should be possible.

Whether we choose to call c the “speed of light “ or a “dimensional constant” the numerical values are identical so none of the math is changed. This change in perspective simplifies SR and it eliminates the paradoxes such as the “Pole in the Barn”. A slight modification to the wording of the second postulate could set everything right.

Olaf Roemer observed the planet Jupiter and its moons and discovered c as the constant ratio between units distance and units of time and he mistakenly called it a “speed”. Unfortunately the misnomer has carried into SR.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

One issue is that there is no “flip” or “change” since the states are not determined. “flip” implies going from one state to the other. 

The “flip” involves going from an indeterminate state of superposition to a determinate state.

 

[joigus]

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

And for @joigus, Hossenfelder cautions against confusing math with reality.

I am a gadget person. My gold standard for truth is if a hypothesis can be reproducibly tested or observed.

You couldn't tell locality from non-locality in a model if either one of them hit you in the face at 1000 miles a second.

That much I have proven here.

As to experiments, I'll give you ten years from now to point me to the experiment where any non-local effect of QM is proven. You can point me to anything from the past too, of course.

There isn't. And my guess is that there never will be. If otherwise, QM would have to be fundamentally wrong.

There's your experimental argument from silence, but a very solid one at that.

I'll be waiting. 

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The non-local and super superluminal nature of entanglement has been demonstrated at CERN and a number of other laboratories around the world so that works for me.

This must be a joke. So where they able to send signals? No. They were able to check the correlations that I told you and proved to you based on QM, are there all along. (Sigh)

Again, "spooky action at a distance" is just words, and very misleading by the way. There are no superluminal signals.

If you and I think of the same thing at the same time (because we're thinking of something learnt by both before), and you decide to call it "action at a distance" just in order to sell more books or get more money for your experiments*, then that's your choice.

Show me the signals, ie, anything that absolutely cannot be mistaken for initial correlations.

Of course they measure "superluminal speeds." It's only because they're not the speed of anything. Let me make a prediction:

Faster and faster "speeds" will be measured, with no limit. As fast the the time precision for the experiments is improved.

And still nobody will be able to send a single blip of information.

Wanna bet?

* Or more clicks for your YouTube channel... Or...

Edited September 18, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[bangstrom]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

You couldn't tell locality from non-locality in a model if either one of them hit you in the face at 1000 miles a second.

That much I have proven here.

As to experiments, I'll give you ten years from now to point me to the experiment where any non-local effect of QM is proven. You can point me to anything from the past too, of course.

There isn't. And my guess is that there never will be. If otherwise, QM would have to be fundamentally wrong.

There's your experimental argument from silence, but a very solid one at that.

I'll be waiting. 

Thank you for the encouraging words Here is a quote about an old experiment from one of the books in my personal collection.

“THE NON-LOCAL UNIVERSE” by Robert Neadau and Menas Kafattose

Oxford University Press 1999 p.4

“The “observed” phenomena in the Aspect and Gisin experiments reveal correlations between properties of quanta, light or photons, emanating from a single source based on measurements made in space-like separated regions. What cannot be measured or observed in this experimental situation, however, is the total reality that exists between the two points whose existence is inferred by the presence of the correlations.

When we consider that all quanta have interacted at some point in the history of the cosmos in the manner that quanta interact at the source of origins in these experiments and that there is no limit on the number of correlations that can exist between these quanta, (4) this leads to another dramatic conclusion- nonlocality is a fundamental property of the entire universe.”

The experiment by Aspect and Gisin was an experiment testing Bell’s Inequality in 1972 at the University of California, Berkley

 

2 hours ago, joigus said:

This must be a joke. So where they able to send signals? No. They were able to check the correlations that I told you and proved to you based on QM, are there all along. (Sigh)

Were Alice and Bob able to send a signal? No. The non-local signal was not between Alice and Bob it was from one quantum particle to its entangled partner. Forget Alice and Bob.

Your thinking is totally anthropomorphic if you think a signal can only be a signal if it sends a message from one person to another. The signal under consideration was between two entangled particles. Whether it was understood by two humans is irrelevant.

When one particle was measured to be spin-up the other particle instantly responded by becoming spin-down. Both particles “got” the message instantly. The signal was non-local at the quantum level. It could only be observed to have been non-local at the macro level by means of an after analysis of the events.

I suspect we may be discussing two different signals? One was non-local at the quantum particle level and the other was local between macro participants, Alice and Bob.

[joigus]

25 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

[...] emanating from a single source[...]

Right. You got that, at least. The funny thing about all this is that neither you, nor any of these Neadau and Kafattose people, and other pop-scientists, book best-sellers, and vloggers you keep throwing at me --as opposed to all other no-nonsense actual scientists on these forums, and actually accomplished scientists who actually do understand-- actually understand what you got:

The correlations are initial!!!

So no non-locality. No superluminal signals.

1) The spin states are indeterminate

2) The correlations are initial

Got it now?

Gosh! Y'all pop-science people seem to be equally stubborn, if nothing else. And now I can absolutely tell that you guys got nothing else.

Oh, by the way, I keep waiting fot that superluminal signal.

[NTuft]

10 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I don’t see instant action at a distance as a violation of anything in SR with the single exception of Einstein’s second postulate where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. 

The second postulate is a provisional statement and it does not work as a law of physics. Faster-than-light need not extend into the main body of SR if we recognize c as a dimensional constant of space and time rather than as a speed. The value of c serves as a universal constant for converting between units of distance and units of time. The constant c is essentially the length of a standard meter expressed in seconds.

It is a ratio and not a speed, and in SR, c works perfectly well as dimensional constant but it acts nothing like a speed. This is why c is the same for all observers independent of their own velocities. Nothing can go faster than c because c is a ratio and NOT a speed. Nothing can go faster than a ratio just as nothing can go faster than 1.6 km per mile. If c were a speed c +/- v should be possible.

Whether we choose to call c the “speed of light “ or a “dimensional constant” the numerical values are identical so none of the math is changed. This change in perspective simplifies SR and it eliminates the paradoxes such as the “Pole in the Barn”. A slight modification to the wording of the second postulate could set everything right.

Olaf Roemer observed the planet Jupiter and its moons and discovered c as the constant ratio between units distance and units of time and he mistakenly called it a “speed”. Unfortunately the misnomer has carried into SR.

Thanks, MigL. I'd still like to hear back from you about what I addressed to you vis a vis Hilbert spaces as a bulk of small local spaces and how that relates to entanglement and locality. I'd also like some explication of S. Hossenfelder's argument, not just your bare synopsis and a video link, seeing as you insist on tilting at MWI with such vigor. Occam's razor can be formulated to say that complexity of phenomenon dictates necessary complexity of explanation, and MWI is not comparable to Leprechauns wrangling rainbows with pots o' gold. 

As to how you figure a ratio cannot be a speed, I do believe you're missing the mathematical description of reality there. It's certainly not in units of kilometers per mile, and by c +/- v I take it you want me to add a scalar to a vector(v, velocity), not a speed(c) to a speed(v), and you think that's impossible? I'd take the magnitude then add them. Granted, c should be the constant speed of light in a vacuum so I doubt what I'm alluding to previously means much, but I do think there's more to argue there. Nonetheless, I appreciate your input and noted the paradox and various other data throughout here.

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

When one particle was measured to be spin-up the other particle instantly responded by becoming spin-down. Both particles “got” the message instantly.

You propose that the act of measurement caused the spin state of the unmeasured particle? Talk about anthropometry. It was spinning down before that.

Edited September 18, 2022 by NTuft
Occam's razor

[MigL]

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In this video Sabina Hossenfelder explains why MWI is not science.

Of course it's not science.
It is an interpretation of the science into 'common' deterministic ideas.
( which are more familiar to us than quantum paradigms )

Do you think the other popular interpretation, that a cat in a box can be dead and alive, simultaneously before wave function collapse, IS real science ????

[Mitcher]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Do you think the other popular interpretation, that a cat in a box can be dead and alive, simultaneously before wave function collapse, IS real science ????

Didn't they already conduct real experiments in the lab about this ?

[bangstrom]

9 hours ago, joigus said:

The correlations are initial!!!

So no non-locality. No superluminal signals.

1) The spin states are indeterminate

2) The correlations are initial

Got it now?

Where were you when we discussed this before?

I can agree that the correlations are initial and the spin states are indeterminate.

But are the spin states fixed from the start like a pair of gloves or are they in a state of alternate flux like two pendulums swinging in alternate directions? You never made this clear despite my asking.

I favor the alternate flux view even over the conventional view of superposition.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Gosh! Y'all pop-science people seem to be equally stubborn, if nothing else. And now I can absolutely tell that you guys got nothing else.

Does the word "projection" sound familiar?

 

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Oh, by the way, I keep waiting for that superluminal signal.

You got it. Are you saying that entanglement where two remote particle are connected as if they were side so that an action upon one instantly affects the other, is not a superluminal connection?

5 hours ago, NTuft said:

I'd also like some explication of S. Hossenfelder's argument, not just your bare synopsis and a video link, seeing as you insist on tilting at MWI with such vigor. Occam's razor can be formulated to say that complexity of phenomenon dictates necessary complexity of explanation, and MWI is not comparable to Leprechauns wrangling rainbows with pots o' gold. 

 

I agree with Ernst Mach that the invention of ad hoc conjectures "metaphysicals" to explain physical events should be avoided if at all possible. It is better to leave the "unknowns" unknown if we want to progress. The danger is that conjectures tend to become "reality" with time and conjectures tend to compound over time. Conjectures are used to explain more conjectures.

Do you have anything specific in mind?

[bangstrom]

6 hours ago, NTuft said:

As to how you figure a ratio cannot be a speed

Speed IS a ratio of distance over time so a ratio can be a speed. But not all ratios of distance over time are necessarily a speed. Some say c is the speed of causality.

 

6 hours ago, NTuft said:

Granted, c should be the constant speed of light in a vacuum so I doubt what I'm alluding to previously means much, but I do think there's more to argue there.

That last point is an understatement. I know from experience.

One issue is that the true speed of light is unknown and unknowable. Our units of distance, time, and the value of c are all mutually defined. The length of a meter is defined the distance light travels in 1/c seconds and a second is defined as the time it takes light to travel a c number of meters. 

Consider the absurdity of trying to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year. This is the conundrum of trying to measure the speed of light.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Of course it's not science.
It is an interpretation of the science into 'common' deterministic ideas.
( which are more familiar to us than quantum paradigms )

Do you think the other popular interpretation, that a cat in a box can be dead and alive, simultaneously before wave function collapse, IS real science ????

The cat is a macro object so QM does not apply but something similar happens at the particle level.