Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-02 12:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Classical entanglement. |
| Message-ID | <2c2144be-f6d2-484c-8fbc-b8aaa37bc56f@googlegroups.com> |
Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be performed using classical systems. Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before rebounding in opposite directions. We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles after the collision. Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even though they are now separated by lead plate ? I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated. Any thoughts ? -y
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 22:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtcis0Fej60U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386728 |
On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
> Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be performed using classical systems.
>
> Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before rebounding in opposite directions.
>
> We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles after the collision.
>
> Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even though they are now separated by lead plate ?
>
> I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
> -y
>
>
>
Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins will
be found to be described by a local model ("hidden" variable).
It's entirely uninteresting.
Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 05:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63a86164-9181-4eb6-ab36-d14034249b33@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386729 |
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
> > Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be performed using classical systems.
> >
> > Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before rebounding in opposite directions.
> >
> > We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles after the collision.
> >
> > Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even though they are now separated by lead plate ?
> >
> > I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
> >
> > Any thoughts ?
> >
> > -y
> >
> >
> >
>
> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins will
> be found to be described by a local model ("hidden" variable).
>
> It's entirely uninteresting.
>
> Sylvia.
See, I think the same is true of entangled elementary particles. There's nothing interesting about them, wouldn't you agree Sylvia ?
-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 22:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtcjpuFeqi7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386730 |
On 27/06/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
>>> Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be
>>> performed using classical systems.
>>>
>>> Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and
>>> collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before
>>> rebounding in opposite directions.
>>>
>>> We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles
>>> after the collision.
>>>
>>> Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even
>>> though they are now separated by lead plate ?
>>>
>>> I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins
>> will be found to be described by a local model ("hidden"
>> variable).
>>
>> It's entirely uninteresting.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> See, I think the same is true of entangled elementary particles.
> There's nothing interesting about them, wouldn't you agree Sylvia ?
>
The math tells us that with entangled particles, a local model,
including a hidden variable model, won't work. That's why entangled
particles are interesting, and projectiles are not.
Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <668a1064-7fb9-41ec-be28-f2b0510c5461@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386732 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 27 czerwca 2016 14:17:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > The math tells us that with entangled particles, a local model, > including a hidden variable model, won't work. The math tells us whatever we assume as axioms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 05:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f947d29-9fc0-4cc2-9a8c-6886af046302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386729 |
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
> > Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be performed using classical systems.
> >
> > Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before rebounding in opposite directions.
> >
> > We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles after the collision.
> >
> > Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even though they are now separated by lead plate ?
> >
> > I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
> >
> > Any thoughts ?
> >
> > -y
> >
> >
> >
>
> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins will
> be found to be described by a local model ("hidden" variable).
>
> It's entirely uninteresting.
>
> Sylvia.
Woah.. hang up a sec. Our detectors are measuring spin and can not communicate through the lead plate, nor do they observe the local interaction that takes place. Ok, I'll draw a diagram of the setup for you.
-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 22:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtckg9Fev1uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386731 |
On 27/06/2016 10:13 PM, Y wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
>>> Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be
>>> performed using classical systems.
>>>
>>> Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and
>>> collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before
>>> rebounding in opposite directions.
>>>
>>> We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles
>>> after the collision.
>>>
>>> Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even
>>> though they are now separated by lead plate ?
>>>
>>> I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins
>> will be found to be described by a local model ("hidden"
>> variable).
>>
>> It's entirely uninteresting.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Woah.. hang up a sec. Our detectors are measuring spin and can not
> communicate through the lead plate, nor do they observe the local
> interaction that takes place. Ok, I'll draw a diagram of the setup
> for you.
>
> -y
>
A hidden variable model does not require communication between the
detectors.
Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5148234d-d71f-4279-b2bc-87f1bdfdb13b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386733 |
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:28:59 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/06/2016 10:13 PM, Y wrote:
> > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
> >>> Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be
> >>> performed using classical systems.
> >>>
> >>> Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and
> >>> collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before
> >>> rebounding in opposite directions.
> >>>
> >>> We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles
> >>> after the collision.
> >>>
> >>> Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even
> >>> though they are now separated by lead plate ?
> >>>
> >>> I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts ?
> >>>
> >>> -y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins
> >> will be found to be described by a local model ("hidden"
> >> variable).
> >>
> >> It's entirely uninteresting.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Woah.. hang up a sec. Our detectors are measuring spin and can not
> > communicate through the lead plate, nor do they observe the local
> > interaction that takes place. Ok, I'll draw a diagram of the setup
> > for you.
> >
> > -y
> >
>
> A hidden variable model does not require communication between the
> detectors.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, its quite feasible classically, to ensure that Alice and Bob are not aware of any interaction happening at the rebound point. So the detectors do not communicate classically here either (rather they send their results to a 3rd location where the results are correlated).
https://s32.postimg.org/5ax4kw3ud/classical_entanglement.png
-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 11:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dte37tFo8jeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386734 |
On 27/06/2016 10:40 PM, Y wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:28:59 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/06/2016 10:13 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2016 9:52 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>> Just gave some thought to a thought experiment, which may be
>>>>> performed using classical systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Supposing we take fire two projectiles so that they interact and
>>>>> collide at some point, (an opening in a lead plate) before
>>>>> rebounding in opposite directions.
>>>>>
>>>>> We locate detectors to observe the spins of these projectiles
>>>>> after the collision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be determined that their "spins" are correlated even
>>>>> though they are now separated by lead plate ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine that yes, they could be correlated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>
>>>>> -y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, they'll be correlated. The measurements of their spins
>>>> will be found to be described by a local model ("hidden"
>>>> variable).
>>>>
>>>> It's entirely uninteresting.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Woah.. hang up a sec. Our detectors are measuring spin and can not
>>> communicate through the lead plate, nor do they observe the local
>>> interaction that takes place. Ok, I'll draw a diagram of the setup
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>
>> A hidden variable model does not require communication between the
>> detectors.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> Well, its quite feasible classically, to ensure that Alice and Bob are not aware of any interaction happening at the rebound point. So the detectors do not communicate classically here either (rather they send their results to a 3rd location where the results are correlated).
>
> https://s32.postimg.org/5ax4kw3ud/classical_entanglement.png
>
>
>
> -y
In this classical situation we can model the behaviour on the basis that
what Alice detects depends only on what Alice decides to measure, and
that what Bob detects depends only on what Bob decides to measure. That
is, the model is local.
When we try this with particles, such a model doesn't work, and we need
a non-local model in which what Alice and Bob each detect depends on
what both Alice and Bob decide to measure.
This is predicted by the theory, and is born out in experiments.
Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 09:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nkt7qb$3t9$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #386771 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 19:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtevfiFte2vU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386778 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 02:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59e73fa4-d92a-44e6-bb50-78bd21b3c6e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386786 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 20:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtf1grFts3jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386787 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4be573c-3b2e-4a3f-b659-dc83e9aaa5f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386789 |
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. 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. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 21:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtf6cfFbthU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386791 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb83e74e-06a6-43a1-8e1d-a1707b5a3d74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386795 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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. Which is exactly what happens in this apparatus. The correlations that A and B find, are not the outcome of local interactions between A and B. A and B have no knowledge at all of any interaction between the balls. Yet, they measure the same or opposite outcomes. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 11:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtgoalFaam4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386800 |
On 28/06/2016 10:42 PM, Y wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> 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. > > > Which is exactly what happens in this apparatus. The correlations > that A and B find, are not the outcome of local interactions between > A and B. A and B have no knowledge at all of any interaction between > the balls. Yet, they measure the same or opposite outcomes. > > -y > > > > > > We have an experiment were the peas come out of the pea shooters with known momentum and angular momentum, interact where they intersect, and then have their momentum and angular momentum measured respectively by Alice and Bob. The results are then compared, and found to be correlated on the basis of the known initial conditions and the requirements that momentum and angular momentum be conserved. If the peas come out of the pea shooter with zero angular momentum, then the angular momentum measurements of Alice and Bob will be found to be equal and opposite. This is described by a local model - each pea has a momentum and angular momentum that can be measured by an observer colocated with the pea - this is, Alice and Bob measure their respective peas when they arrive. I really have difficulty understanding why you think this has any significance. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 21:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97540be8-6552-498b-b0dc-f2f9aa24b138@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386858 |
Nope Sylvia. Their results are not compared that way. They needn't be for they will be perfectly correlated. There's no need to discuss angular momentum force or these initial conditions. A and B can set up a coordinate system, and assign simple numerical values for spin. 1 up, 0 down etc. Every time a ball comes into their cavity they produce the measure and send it to correlation point. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 14:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dth0s8FbmsvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386863 |
On 29/06/2016 2:11 PM, Y wrote: > Nope Sylvia. > > Their results are not compared that way. They needn't be for they > will be perfectly correlated. There's no need to discuss angular > momentum force or these initial conditions. A and B can set up a > coordinate system, and assign simple numerical values for spin. 1 up, > 0 down etc. Every time a ball comes into their cavity they produce > the measure and send it to correlation point. > > -y > Peas don't have quantised spin. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 04:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0aaa2ac-035f-47e7-99d1-4d7cd7ef4030@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386864 |
Neither do elementary particles. The quantizations are "assigned" to specific states. There is nothing preventing a left spin being assigned 0 and a right spin being assigned 1. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web