So how can we disentangle logic from physics? Well, by simply noting that the emblematic quantum correlation, the so-called EPR-Bohm correlation or the singlet correlation, can be explained locally without needing to use extra dimensions or teleparallel gravity. It can be explained by noting that the physical space we experience immediately respects the geometry and topology of S^3, not R^3, where S^3 is dimensionally no different from R^3. It is simply a three dimensional space, but with spinorial or fermionic topology. Just as the surface of a ball, S^2, is as two-dimensional as the plane R^2, S^3 is as three-dimensional as R^3. This, then, immediately sidesteps all the thorny issues of extra dimensions you mention in your discussion. . . . Following Bell it is usually claimed that no quantum correlation can be explained purely locally. This claim can be refuted by simply demonstrating that in fact the emblematic quantum correlation, i.e., the EPR-Bohm or singlet correlation, can be explained purely locally (http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415), and without needing extra dimensions.
Yablon wrote:the "non-locality" which many people (now including me) believe is required to explain certain quantum phenomena
Maybe as a start to clear thinking, I would suggest you clearly lay out, even if only for your own evaluation, why you believe non-locality is required to explain quantum correlations:
Yablon wrote:the "non-locality" which many people (now including me) believe is required to explain certain quantum phenomena
Why do you believe non-locality is required?
Yablon wrote:So are you saying, Joy, that by putting our three space dimensions on a sphere not unlike what Freidmann did in his cosmological model, and by recognizing the fashion in which a three-dimensional Pythagorean space can be spinorially deconstructed (about which I will have much more to say in the next few days), we are able to locally explain apparent non-locality?
Rick Lockyer wrote:On minkwe's "Specifically, you can disprove Bell by using producing a manifestly local model that generates the strong correlations as Joy has done.", could someone explain how what was demonstrated was manifestly local when one could hold Alice's orientation fixed and vary Bob's and see a difference in Alice's observations with Bob's orientation change?
Yablon wrote:Why do you believe non-locality is required?
Because I cannot explain how the guiding potential in my Figure 30 in section 20 of at http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf "knows" about the slit configuration unless the vacuum has some form of non-local information, albeit derived via ordinary special relativistic signalling.
Yablon wrote: Which anticipates my next question: if somebody can use what Joy is doing (or any other insights) to help me figure out how to explain the way in which the guiding potential "knows" about the slits without resort to non-locality, I would drop my present view that non-locality is required in a heartbeat.
Joy Christian wrote:Yablon wrote:So are you saying, Joy, that by putting our three space dimensions on a sphere not unlike what Freidmann did in his cosmological model, and by recognizing the fashion in which a three-dimensional Pythagorean space can be spinorially deconstructed (about which I will have much more to say in the next few days), we are able to locally explain apparent non-locality?
Exactly, Jay. Please see my latest paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (I know you are not too keen on simulations, but this one supports the claim in my paper).
Rick Lockyer wrote:On the two slit experiment with electrons, have you thought that maybe, just maybe each electron actually goes through both slits and the result is actually self-interference? Can you think of an experiment that rules this out?
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy,
Your referenced post is non-responsive unless you claim quantum mechanics predicts Alice's observations are predicated on Bob's settings. Not thinking you will get a lot of support for that. Relative vs. fixed is neither here nor there in my request. Your referenced post even mentions holding one fixed as being all that is required. That is all I am asking also. Were you meaning to say (but failed in referenced post) that Alice and Bob are part of a single system anyway and not independent? Would that not make the locality issue a red herring?
minkwe wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:On the two slit experiment with electrons, have you thought that maybe, just maybe each electron actually goes through both slits and the result is actually self-interference? Can you think of an experiment that rules this out?
Very unlikely. The electron and atomic scattering cross-sections have bee experimentally determined and are well bellow the size/separation of your slits (~ 10^-15 cm^2).
Joy Christian wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy,
Your referenced post is non-responsive unless you claim quantum mechanics predicts Alice's observations are predicated on Bob's settings. Not thinking you will get a lot of support for that. Relative vs. fixed is neither here nor there in my request. Your referenced post even mentions holding one fixed as being all that is required. That is all I am asking also. Were you meaning to say (but failed in referenced post) that Alice and Bob are part of a single system anyway and not independent? Would that not make the locality issue a red herring?
Rick,
As I have urged you before, I urge you again that you first try to understand what is meant by local and what is not within Bell's local-realistic framework before raising your questions. I have explained the precise definition of locality (as conceived by Einstein and quantified by Bell) many times before, in great detail, so I am not going to do that again. You will have to do some background reading yourself. I recommend chapter 16 of Bell's book.
So you believe
1. The "guiding potential" definitely exists as a physical thing (in the real world) rather than just an information manipulation device of your theory.
2. It is impossible to explain (as differentiated from "I cannot explain").
Won't you need to believe both of those in order to believe non-locality is required? Otherwise, maybe the "guiding potential" is not real (1 out the door), and/or maybe somebody else can explain it even if you can't (2 out the door), then your belief is irrational/premature.
Yablon wrote: Which anticipates my next question: if somebody can use what Joy is doing (or any other insights) to help me figure out how to explain the way in which the guiding potential "knows" about the slits without resort to non-locality, I would drop my present view that non-locality is required in a heartbeat.
I haven't studied your theory in detail but my initial evaluation is that you will run into problems because I don't think you clearly separate ontology from epistemology. You will have to rework your theory so that it clearly distinguishes between things that exist in the real world (ontology), and tools that we use in our minds/on paper to manipulate information about the ontology (epistemology). "Guiding potential" is one of those things in my opinion that are merely devices for manipulating information (epistemology). Talking about what it can know or not know will just lead to confusion IMHO.
To give you an example from the path integral formalism:
Example of confusion:
- The particle takes all possible paths between X and Y simultaneously, each with a different amplitude.
Clear thinking:
- We can calculate the correct probability for the particle to go from X to Y by considering all the possible paths, and their probability amplitudes.
Rick Lockyer wrote:You are ducking.
Rick Lockyer wrote:Are Alice's observations to be independent of Bob's settings? Yes or no. If yes, why are they not in your simulation?
Rick Lockyer wrote:Are Alice's observations to be independent of Bob's settings? Yes or no. If yes, why are they not in your simulation?
Alice's observations are independent of Bob's settings in my simulation, as anyone knowledgeable can see for themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415.
Rick Lockyer wrote:Quantum mechanics as you have said, demonstrates the cosine function is relative to the difference in Alice's and Bob's orientation angles. What this means is it really does not matter what the two absolute angles are. You could move both keeping the same relative difference and expect the results not to change.
Rick Lockyer wrote:A 35+ year career in software development makes me abundantly knowledgeable to analyse your referenced program. Quantum mechanics as you have said, demonstrates the cosine function is relative to the difference in Alice's and Bob's orientation angles. What this means is it really does not matter what the two absolute angles are. You could move both keeping the same relative difference and expect the results not to change. This is not the case in your simulation. You take a single slice of the x-y plot you have put out in other programs and state (incorrectly for your simulation) that it does not matter if you fix beta at an angle of zero, any will do. Take any two separate angles with a fixed separation and compare the +1/-1 observations. They will be different. This is not predicted by quantum mechanics, which you state is the fundamental requirement. Anybody with a modicum of programming skills should be able to demonstrate this.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 146 guests