Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386795

Re: Classical entanglement.

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/06/2016 9:00 PM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 8:23:26 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 28/06/2016 7:59 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 7:48:36 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 28/06/2016 5:08 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dte37tFo8jeU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> |This is predicted by the theory, and is born out in
>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>
>>>>> :) Both?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The experimental results are as predicted by the theory,
>>>> and neither can be described by a local model.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Sylvia. This isn't a local model. A has no local relations or
>>> effects with B. They're separated by a lead plate.
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's not what local model means. After the peas interact at the
>> intersection point, each pea has a definite velocity and spin, and
>> Alice and Bob measure those independently of each other. All the
>> information required to determine the values that Alice will
>> measure is contained within Alice's pea. When Alice performs her
>> measurements, she is at the same place as the pea. Her measurements
>> are local.
>>
>> The same applies to Bob and his pea. So the model of the behaviour
>> involves only local interactions between the peas and the person
>> doing the measuring.
>>
>> Now, it might have been thought that the same thing would be true
>> when the experiment is done using particles. The theory that each
>> particle contains the information required to determine the results
>> of measurements performed on that particle (i.e. a local model)
>> constrains the possible results, and the actual results violate the
>> constraint. The theory is falsified - it's wrong.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Hmm, I'm getting the impression that you aren't fully aware of the
> meaning of locality with respect to these types of entanglement
> experiments.
>
> Essentially, locality regards interactions. i.e.
>
> "To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must
> travel through the space between the two points, to carry the
> influence."
>
> Now that is clearly not the case between A and B. A and B are not
> exerting influences upon eachother "locally" during their respective
> measures of the spin in this setup.
>
> They might in a very negligible way be influencing the motion of the
> ball spin, by rebounding signals from it during the observation. What
> is different in a quantum system, is that the act of observation is
> not negligible, and forces an elementary particle into a particular
> state.
>
> So there are no locally "hidden" variables here Sylvia. There is no
> "hidden" communication happening directly between Alice and Bob
> causing their outcomes to be correlated.

It doesn't matter what the measurements do to the particles. It's the 
measurement outcomes, whatever they are, that show the non-locality, 
because those outcomes are correlated in a way that cannot possibly be 
the result of purely local interactions.

Nick Herbert provides a very simple and accessible proof of that on his 
page here:

http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

That's not to say there's any communication. We don't know how the 
Universe achieves it.

>
> For example, the principle of locality in SR relates to the speed of
> light. I.e. that if Alice and Bob were communicating information with
> light signals to each other, then locality demands these transmission
> be ≤c. So the setup of a lead plate Between Alice and Bob disallows
> any local interactions between them.

Your lead plates are a red-herring. The correlation in your pea-shooter 
experiment doesn't require communication anyway. In the particle case, 
you've no way of knowing whether lead plates would be sufficient - 
they're pretty much transparent to neutrinos, for example.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700
  Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:01 +1000
    Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:02 -0700
      Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:17 +1000
        Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-27 06:25 -0700
    Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:13 -0700
      Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:28 +1000
        Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:40 -0700
          Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 11:46 +1000
            Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:08 +0200
              Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 19:48 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 02:59 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 20:23 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 04:00 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:46 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 05:42 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:58 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:11 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 14:24 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:24 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 22:03 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:28 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:13 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 12:34 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:02 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:12 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 21:38 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:49 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:11 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:57 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 12:34 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:42 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:55 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:15 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 08:43 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 09:09 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 13:29 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:56 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-02 08:35 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:08 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:07 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 12:57 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-02 12:55 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-02 00:06 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:00 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 12:52 +0200
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:47 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 15:19 +0200
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:59 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:48 +1000
  Re: Classical entanglement. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-02 12:06 -0700

csiph-web