davidm » September 11th, 2018, 12:52 am wrote:Doesn't MWI do away with all this? No spooky action at a distance, no antirealism, no indeterminism, no wave function collapse, no alleged special role for consciousness?
Correct. Yes. And correct.
![]() |
![]() |
davidm » September 11th, 2018, 12:52 am wrote:Doesn't MWI do away with all this? No spooky action at a distance, no antirealism, no indeterminism, no wave function collapse, no alleged special role for consciousness?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » September 11th, 2018, 2:49 am wrote:davidm » September 10th, 2018, 3:52 pm wrote:Doesn't MWI do away with all this? No spooky action at a distance, no antirealism, no indeterminism, no wave function collapse, no alleged special role for consciousness?
Not really. It just changes where the non-locality comes in to how the ele
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
As von Baeyer puts it, "Wavefunctions are not tethered to electrons and carried along like haloes hovering over the heads of saints—they are assigned by an agent and depend on the total information available to the agent."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos wrote:Avenue 1) Quantum mechanics is wrong. Avenue 2) QM is correct.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » September 12th, 2018, 2:17 pm wrote:
The shared state is considered "one" and can be modeled in 4D but the particles have separate spatial locations.
Faradave » September 12th, 2018, 2:17 pm wrote:
Information has no existence apart form the physical. It is always expressed in terms of mass-energy thus, restricted by universal speed limit c.
Faradave » September 12th, 2018, 2:17 pm wrote:
It's fine to consider an entanglement to represent one state of information and disentanglement to be another form. But change in state is not the same as communication, even if it appears to have been coordinated.
In a similar sense, the universe imposes physical laws throughout space and time (that's what makes them laws) but that universal coordination of observed laws in no way requires the coordinated objects to communicate with each other faster than c.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
JustAsking » September 12th, 2018, 12:45 pm wrote: There aren't two particles, there's only one, in a higher dimension. Of course we only observe the particles in 3D, and so posit exchanges of info and whatnot. Well there is no exchange of info or any actual entanglement I suppose since it's just the same single 4D particle appearing to us to be in two different 3D places.
Thoughts?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 5:15 am wrote:Entanglement is also a superposition of location. The location of entangled particles is said to be “indeterminate.” We can’t say particle A is in location A or particle B is in location B until after one of the particles is observed which instantly fixes the location of both particles. The locations of the particles after entanglement is random and not necessarily the same as it was before entanglement.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:This appears to be the point where our views part company.
bangstrom wrote:information is the thing that “informs” a particle of its quantum identity. It informs an electron as to how to be an electron
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
That's the shared state being modeled in 4D which is a mathematical operation. I mean there's a single physical particle that only appears spatially separated in 3D but isn't in 4D.Faradave » September 12th, 2018, 2:17 pm wrote:bangstrom wrote:I can agree with all that except for the exclusion of a communication of information.dandelion wrote:I prefer views agreeing with exchange of information
Information has no existence apart form the physical. It is always expressed in terms of mass-energy thus, restricted by universal speed limit c.
It's fine to consider an entanglement to represent one state of information and disentanglement to be another form. But change in state is not the same as communication, even if it appears to have been coordinated.
In a similar sense, the universe imposes the same physical laws throughout space and time (that's what makes them laws) but that universal coordination of observed laws in no way requires the coordinated objects to communicate with each other faster than c.JustAsking wrote:Could the same basic idea apply with entangled particles? There aren't two particles, there's only one, in a higher dimension.
Hi JA,
The shared state is considered "one" and can be modeled in 4D but the particles have separate spatial locations. One of the pair can annihilate or drop into a blackhole without the other (of course breaking the entanglement), so in most respects they meet the same typical properties of individual particles.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » September 13th, 2018, 9:32 am wrote:bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 5:15 am wrote:Entanglement is also a superposition of location. The location of entangled particles is said to be “indeterminate.” We can’t say particle A is in location A or particle B is in location B until after one of the particles is observed which instantly fixes the location of both particles. The locations of the particles after entanglement is random and not necessarily the same as it was before entanglement.
No, this is not what entanglement is. And whether you can have this sort of entanglement is not something you have demonstrated. Just because you can have a superposition of states doesn't mean that kind of superposition can be entangled. Are you just making things up?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 12:51 pm wrote:Entanglement is the momentary and non-local superposition of quantum states. How is that wrong?
bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 12:51 pm wrote:The theory of what we now call “entanglement” as being the mechanism behind the non-local transmission of EM energy has been around since proposed by Hugo Tetrode in 1922 and Einstein pointed out to Wheeler and Feynman that their “absorber” theory bore a close resemblance to Tetrode’s except for their many magic photons that went everywhere and did everything and then disappeared.
bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 12:51 pm wrote:The most recent formulation of Tetrode’s theory is John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics “TIQM” which is essentially the older W-F Absorber theory without the photon particles traveling through space.
bangstrom » September 13th, 2018, 12:51 pm wrote:A part of the theory is that the identity of a particle can be shared with another particle and the particles can later randomly swap identities making it appear that they have swapped locations without traveling through the space between. This possibility is demonstrated in any experiment involving quantum teleportation.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » September 13th, 2018, 9:39 am wrote:hyksos wrote:Avenue 1) Quantum mechanics is wrong. Avenue 2) QM is correct.
There's a lot I agree with in your post but some weakness.
For example, you offer a binary choice above, when a qubit would seem more appropriate.
QM is at least incomplete without gravity (Higgs lends itself to inertial mass) but I would not discard it. Nor would I discard the possibility of rearranging concepts of classical physics which is similarly incomplete.
Unfortunately, I must be away for a few days but I'm sure you don't need to another rendition of Phyxed. Episodes of Quantum Spin and Gravity are available to anyone I overlooked.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » September 13th, 2018, 4:56 pm wrote:
Entanglement is when TWO or more particles are in a state which must be described by the same wave function because it is in a superposition with respect to the eigenestates of some measurement operator so that the measurements of the two particles must be correlated with each other.
mitchellmckain » September 13th, 2018, 4:56 pm wrote:
Entanglement cannot be used for the non-local transmission of energy (i.e. for the super-luminal transmission of energy over a space-like interval). This is wrong.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » September 14th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:That sounds more like my understanding of entanglement than your previous comments on the subject or even those of your most recent post.
bangstrom » September 14th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:If by some wild discontinuity in the spacetime continuum, the superluminal and non-local transmission of energy happens. How could we identify it as being any different from the classical transmission of a radio signal.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » September 14th, 2018, 3:47 am wrote:bangstrom » September 14th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:That sounds more like my understanding of entanglement than your previous comments on the subject or even those of your most recent post.
But the important thing is that this does not agree with what you just said. Precision in science is crucial for that is one of the important differences from philosophy and theology.
mitchellmckain » September 14th, 2018, 3:47 am wrote:bangstrom » September 14th, 2018, 1:09 am wrote:If by some wild discontinuity in the spacetime continuum, the superluminal and non-local transmission of energy happens. How could we identify it as being any different from the classical transmission of a radio signal.
Then the universe would be incoherent with no order between cause and effect. And we would have good cause to think the universe is nothing but crazy dream without any consistent rules. This is because what you suggest is precluded by the space-time structure of the universe itself which separates past from future. You would only think it is possible if you are imposing an Euclidean structure on it, which may be good for movie films but not for the universe we live in.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:mitchellmckain » September 14th, 2018, 3:47 am wrote:But the important thing is that this does not agree with what you just said. Precision in science is crucial for that is one of the important differences from philosophy and theology.
How is this different from what I said? Here are three of my complaints about your comments.
You said,"It doesn't have to be nonlocal and just because a superposition is non-local doesn't make it entanglement."
Entanglement is a non-local superposition of quantum states. Every time.
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:You said,"You said, “Identical particles have no individual identity.”
Of course not. That is why they are called “identical” and we don’t need a law of physics for that. Quantum superposition requires that entangled particles have opposite quantum identities.
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:Quantum superposition requires that entangled particles have opposite quantum identities.
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:If an electron in a spin-up position spontaneously entangles with an electron in a spin-down position and later decoherence leaves the spin-up electron where the spin-down electron was previously and vice versa, then we have two particles that have swapped identities. Our observation is that the two electrons have swapped locations but neither electron needs to have moved from its original position. They swapped identities- not locations.
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:You said, "Yes, superpositions can be non-local but its decoherence involves no transmission of information, because there is no information content in random results."
The loss of entanglement may be random or cause unknown but the opposite identities of the particles that drop out indicates a common coordination between particles indicating that some form of non-random communication has been sent and received .
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:Quantum information is defined as the mysterious thing that informs particles of their quantum identities. You may not approve of the statement that “information” has been exchanged when entanglement is lost but the event is customarily described as an exchange of “quantum information” and quantum information is not exactly the same thing as classical information.
In physics and computer science, quantum information is information that is held in the state of a quantum system.
bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:mitchellmckain » September 14th, 2018, 3:47 am wrote:Then the universe would be incoherent with no order between cause and effect. And we would have good cause to think the universe is nothing but crazy dream without any consistent rules. This is because what you suggest is precluded by the space-time structure of the universe itself which separates past from future. You would only think it is possible if you are imposing an Euclidean structure on it, which may be good for movie films but not for the universe we live in.
The observation of quantum entanglement demonstrates that non-local interaction among remote particles is possible and it can happen without the total destruction of the universe. Entanglement side steps the usual space time structure that separates past from future but it is likely that only small minority of particles are entangled at any one time so the timing of direct physical interactions among particles that we frequently observe as cause and effect is limited by the permeability and permittivity of space. These two properties of spacetime are responsible for the constant ratio of c for the space/time separation between cause and effect. That is why these two properties are referred to as the “speed of causality.”
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:
Incorrect. It CAN be non-local but no it doesn't have to be. Non-locality is not what makes it entanglement. What makes it entanglement is that TWO or more particles are in a state which must be described by the same wave function because it is in a superposition with respect to the eigenestates of some measurement operator so that the measurements of the two particles must be correlated with each other.
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:
Incorrect you are editing my words. What I said was...bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:Quantum superposition requires that entangled particles have opposite quantum identities.
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:
Why are you talking about quantum identities when they don't have any such thing. There is only the type of particle and the quantum state. And they certainly don't necessarily have opposite states. You can set an entanglement where they have the same quantum state. Do you want me to write down such a wave function?
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:
Spontaneously entangles? This makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about. A pair of particles are usually entangled because they are produced under conditions where some quantity like angular momentum must be conserved. And again you speak of identities when there is no such thing.
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:bangstrom » September 15th, 2018, 4:41 am wrote:Quantum information is defined as the mysterious thing that informs particles of their quantum identities. You may not approve of the statement that “information” has been exchanged when entanglement is lost but the event is customarily described as an exchange of “quantum information” and quantum information is not exactly the same thing as classical information.
NO. It is not defined as any such thing.
From wikipedia:In physics and computer science, quantum information is information that is held in the state of a quantum system.
There is no transmission of such information, because both have this information already. There is only the non-local change of state by decoherence to a random part of the superposition.
mitchellmckain » September 16th, 2018, 2:47 pm wrote:Incorrect. There is no interaction. Decoherence is not an interaction. You cannot side step the structure of the universe, you can only obstinately ignore it in order to insist on nonsensical ideas. All great for sci-fi and fantasy stories but having nothing to do with the reality of the universe in which we live.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Event Horizon » September 17th, 2018, 11:38 pm wrote:Guys, I literally just came across this: https://www.livescience.com/63595-schro ... tification
I haven't read it through yet, but clearly it's a fascinating development. A quantum particle can apparently be at two simultaneous temperatures. Moreover, what does it mean to our concept of QM as is? It kinda begs the question, just how many other things can hold simultaneously binary states?
Or rather, perhaps, how many binary states can exist?
I assume the article is reliable, unlike my braincell. (singular!).
When Landauer argued in 1961 that any physical realisation of erasure of information has a fundamental thermodynamic work cost he irrevocably linked thermodynamics and information theory1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. A practical consequence of this insight is that all computers must dissipate a minimal amount of heat in each irreversible computing step, a threshold that is becoming a concern with future computer chips entering atomic scales. The treatment of general quantum information processing tasks within the wider framework of quantum thermodynamics has only recently begun.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » September 13th, 2018, 12:42 am wrote:Well, some physicists have gone for the "Wigner's Friend" silliness, where consciousness confers a special causal status over inanimate measuring devices. But it does seem to have been relegated to the pseudoscience bin. I like the way Bayesians shoot it down.
To Mermin among others, the Wigner's friend situation does not lead to a paradox, because there is never a uniquely correct wavefunction for any system. Instead, a wavefunction is a statement of personalist Bayesian probabilities, and moreover, the probabilities that wavefunctions encode are probabilities for experiences that are also personal to the agent who experiences them. As von Baeyer puts it, "Wavefunctions are not tethered to electrons and carried along like haloes hovering over the heads of saints—they are assigned by an agent and depend on the total information available to the agent." Consequently, there is nothing wrong in principle with Wigner and his friend assigning different wavefunctions to the same system.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I don't think it's the case that the moon is in a superposition until human beings look up into the sky and their consciousness snaps the moon into a particular state !!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dandelion » September 27th, 2018, 3:18 pm wrote:I’m probably walking straight into some nasty mistake, but I don’t have a problem with flexible cut notions, although unaware of recent silliness attacking QM logically, I think. I’ll google a bit later but worried now about what I might see!
Thanks, very nice! These are things I think about too and mostly from a physical starting point like I think you like too and imagine the following are things you’ve thought of too. Even if taking a view that may not concern religions, a treating of human-centrism with significance seems to have some historic parallels with things like the geocentric model, which concerns me too so try to avoid attaching special significance if I can. In that frame of mind to try to pick holes, perhaps the premise can be vague about causation and whether change occurs due to causation or as correlation. There can be vagueness with notions of observation or measurement, or observer as any physical system or necessarily as human observation, or whether consciousness or human consciousness has any especially important role. There can be vagueness about a system under observation, apparatus, etc. More to that, there can be vagueness about systems, like your mention of molecules etc., and whether this involves singular entities or more plural statistical notions or properties, etc. There might be a range of extents of much of these questions that amongst other things could include Wigner’s friend or apparatus or records taken of the experiment etc. Of course, an alternative question can be about what else hasn't been considered, and that it could be premature to assume any special interpretive conclusions. So, there could be questions around the premise that can raise questions about significance without necessarily assuming all of (1) or (2) entirely, I think?
(1) Physical events happen that have no cause. No cause in the past. No cause in the present, and no cause in the future. God plays dice.
(2) The reality we experience is a tiny slice of a exploding branch of realities, wherein everything that could happen, does happen. (Many WOrlds or MWI if you prefer).
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests