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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386728 > unrolled thread

Classical entanglement.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#387153

On 7/1/2016 7:56 PM, Y wrote:
> A prediction may be useful as it may help us derive knowledge about a physical system. The entire point of
> making predictions regards the usefulness in doing so.

No, that is not the entire point. The primary point is to be able to 
claim a better understanding of how nature works.

>
> Which is 'more' accurate between competing theories still doesn't allow us to say anything about nature with certainty.

Certainty is not a feature of science. The lack of certainty is not 
something to be held up as a failure.

>
> I'm not sure I follow the point in your last post tbh. You seem to be suggesting that predictions do not offer
> usefulness. I'm not sure I agree. Predictions have utility, which I why in many if not all cases, they're
> represented by a "function".

"Function" as defined in mathematics, and "function" in the context of 
practical usage, are two completely different semantic meanings.

>
>
> -y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387170

I don't agree on your first point. We don't really find out how nature works, since we never really prove anything about nature, we only really test accuracy of predictions with some kind of evidence. Evidence supports a possible truth, whereas proof regards certainty that something is true. In this regard we choose our own adventure in science.

Lastly, a function is something with inputs and outputs (which is how anything that is designed or occurs to function “functions"). An equation in this respect has likeness to a vacuum cleaner, and it is this functionality which is the reason that mathematics has ANY predictive value at all. This is because the world is a vast sum of systems with inputs and outputs. Mathematics are systems where inputs are numbers, and outputs are numbers. So then, match physical inputs with numbers, describe system with a function, and your outputs should form a prediction (if your equation accurately models system).

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387191

On 7/4/2016 12:07 PM, Y wrote:
> I don't agree on your first point. We don't really find out how nature works, since we never
> really prove anything about nature, we only really test accuracy of predictions with some kind
> of evidence. Evidence supports a possible truth, whereas proof regards certainty that something
> is true. In this regard we choose our own adventure in science.

Well, as I said, certainty is not in the offering of science. However, 
it is foundational to science that we get a closer and closer 
approximation to how nature *actually works* by improving our models. 
The improvement of a model is determined operationally in the manner 
already described. If the theory makes predictions of observable 
behaviors with increasing accuracy and increasing breadth of 
application, then as far as science is concerned this marks a more 
successful model than what was had before. And thus, by intent of the 
method, one has achieved a more proximate understanding of the way 
nature actually works.

Proofs are not part of science. Therefore any certainty one would 
achieve from "proof" is not available to you in science.

>
> Lastly, a function is something with inputs and outputs (which is how anything that is
> designed or occurs to function “functions"). An equation in this respect has likeness to
>  a vacuum cleaner, and it is this functionality which is the reason that mathematics has
> ANY predictive value at all. This is because the world is a vast sum of systems with
> inputs and outputs. Mathematics are systems where inputs are numbers, and outputs are
> numbers. So then, match physical inputs with numbers, describe system with a function,
> and your outputs should form a prediction (if your equation accurately models system).
>

As I've commented before, I just don't buy into your playing with 
language to suit your own interpretations.

> -y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387077

On 2/07/2016 1:43 AM, Y wrote:
> I guess you probably mean with a test you can show usefulness or
> consistency of prediction without asserting that the prediction is
> naturally "true".

It's worth noting that the word "verify" in physics has a meaning 
slightly different from its everyday usage, since all scientists know 
that no experiment every proves that a theory is correct. Thus "verify" 
in physics means something more akin to "support".

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387079

On 7/1/16 7/1/16   9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> It's worth noting that the word "verify" in physics has a meaning slightly
> different from its everyday usage, since all scientists know that no experiment
> ever proves that a theory is correct. Thus "verify" in physics means something
> more akin to "support".

Yes, when discussing theories of physics.

When discussing simulation and modeling programs, "verify" means checking that 
the program behaves within specifications, while "validate" means testing that 
the results agree with relevant experiments. In most cases the latter is much 
more important, but can usually not be achieved if the program cannot be verified.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386951

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:13:41 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:28:25 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> > The simple case where Alice and Bob measure the spin of particles in 
> > either parallel or orthogonal axes can be modelled using hidden 
> > variables. It's not the interesting case.
> 
> Every other entanglement experiment involves particles that are emitted from a source. As I understand it, that's the very point since at the source, particles become entangled pursuant to conservation laws. 
> 
> http://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/entangler.png 
> 
> > The interesting case is where Alice and Bob measure the spin in axes 
> > that are at other angles. In particular, if Alice and Bob measure in 
> > axes that are at 30 degrees to each other, then then measurements differ 
> > from the parallel case 1 time in 4. But if they measure at 60 degrees, 
> > the measurements differ from the parallel case 3 times in 4. This is the 
> > situation that cannot be represented by a local model, and it doesn't 
> > arise with macroscopic objects.
> > 
> 
> What you're describing is a Bell's inequality test or a GHZ test. These types of outcomes (the wrong ones) happen when we use modern or classical tools or a locality principle to evaluate correlations found between Alice and Bob. In the experimental setup I've shown you, such a principle of locality equally does not apply. There is a lead plate separating Alice and Bob, and this is done to minimize any possible hidden locality variables (eliminating most) excepting perhaps a neutrino (which would be highly unlikely given that peas will not emit such particles). 
> 
> Have a watch.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zfnvGXpy-g
> 
> What the experiment I've shown shows is that after an interaction at the source, A and B will make a detection of these classical particles. Neither A and B can assume any locally hidden theories for the correlations they find. i.e. correlation is not necessarily an outcome of causalities arising between A and B. A and B are not propagating information at c towards each other. 
> 
> Of course, one could argue locality at the emission point for any quantum experiment, just as you seem to be arguing locality (an outcome of the peashooters and collision). 
> 
> In some privileged frame, where we can see the entirety of what happens, it's easy to get muddled up. But observer A and observer B know none the better. Simply, a ball flies into their cavity and all A and B can possibly do is make a detection about spin wrt a locally adopted coordinate system. Factoring that A or B adpot randomly chosen axes, the rate of correlations over time should be expected to be 1/2.
> 
> 
> -y


Now, the point I wish to make regarding this expected outcome (before I actually go on to produce the experiment - the next step) is very simple and very succinct. Any test eliminating hidden locality variables, (either Bell's inequality tests) or GHZ tests, serve to verify the assertions made by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in their 1935 paper that *spooky action at a distance* doesn't happen. The conclusion is so straightforward, one may be compelled to find a comfortable chair and brace themselves for impact. Correlation need not be causation. Mathematicians of course have known this since at least the mid 1800's when the concept of correlation was created. 

You know, the history of this problem is unsurprising given how new the concept of correlation is (a mere 160 years in science). Maybe, there's been a simple muddle up somewhere ? This tends to happen when egos are flying high, and everyone out there wants to prove Einstein wrong.


During the early part of the twentieth century, as quantum mechanics began to emerge, four main camps put their two bobs worth in about what it mean't. These camps can be summed by four house names (Bohr, Einstein, Bohm and Everett) and each reflect a different epistemic approach to tackling the mathematical, experimental and interpretive explanations of QM. 

Roughly describing the argument of Bohr, is that wavefunctions **describe the quantum world** because they accord with observation. In conclusion for Bohr, it is wrong to believe that the task of physics is to determine what nature "is", and regards only that which we can say about how nature works. Of course, this interpretation has it's pros and cons with respect to the other three camps. The Einstein (EPR) camp, asserted that wavefunctions are just probabilistic knowledge about a deeper underlying reality, and that quantum mechanics can not provide a complete description about nature (due to measurement limitations, light speed, locality and system disturbances that arise from the process of observation). 

I'll put Bohm and Everett to the side of this analysis for the moment, since these two seem to make  "naturalistic" assertions about nature and can be easily dismissed (in fact as it turns out - the only people in these camps who do not make bald assertions turns out to be those in the EPR camp). Bohm asserts that a pilot wave guides particles and that the whole universe is fundamentally "interconnected". Everett goes on to say that wavefunctions on their own are reality, and in principle the whole universe could be described as a wavefunction of some kind.

Now, where the Bohr camp is typically regarded as having prevailed in the histrical attitudes that now follow, it's probably worth mentioning that his entire premise is contradictory. That is, he begins by saying that our wavefunctions *ncessarily* describe the quantum world. Contrast this with the EPR camp which asserts

"wavefunctions are just probabilistic knowledge about a deeper underlying reality"(EPR). 

Of course, Bohr's conclusion ultimately works out to be correct, it's just his initial assertions or axioms which are not. That is;

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature *is*. Physics concerns what we can say about nature".

In this regard therefore, it seems to be this is the flow holds the steadiest ground that; wavefunctions are just probabilistic knowledge about a deeper underlying reality, but it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature *is*.

And therefore, what we can say about nature at the quantum level is probabilistic. 

Of course, it is possible that the EPR paradox can be resolved with applications of Bell's inequality. What I mean by this, is that Bell's inequality may not be inconsistent with the EPR claims and may infact serve to test and verify them. What Bell's inequality seems to do is allow us to eliminate classical means for communicating from Alice to Bob. A way to resolve the EPR (and rather the point of the EPR anyway).

Bell's inequality shows us how local theories do not give us the right ways of evaluating the results between entangled particles. The very cut down version of this, is that these particles simply do not 'talk' and Bell's theorem allows us to eliminate the possibility that they do by any classical means. i.e. Bell's theorem or experiments thereof provide a test of the EPR, and resolve it.

I disagree with Bohr's assertion that probabilistic density curves "describe the quantum world." It's an assertion from which many strange interpretations can emerge. One problem left to be determined is whethere or not probability density curves can describe the classical world (which mathematicians seem to think they can). 

This is because correlation and causality are different things and anyone using probability theory should know this. Einstein is coming from the point of view of causality (describing locality and non-locality in physics). Causality is usually associated with deterministic science, but of course, the mathematics of probability allow us to draw correlations between things which are unrelated. The fundamental error, is to believe that "spooky action at a distance" is real (something that Einstein held could not be possible). Of course, action at a distance was always spooky, even for gravitation (a false interpretation derived from the classical mechanics).

Here's a thought experiment I've devised for "action at a distance" even for classical mechanics. 

Supposing a 5 atom body and a 1 billion atom body are in freefall moving towards eachother. It is necessary that according to the theory of action at a distance that the 5 atom body *must* by way of some mediating particles, exert an influence over every part of the 1 billion atom body for any one instant of that motion. This entails that for every instant, the 5 atom body necessarily emits 5 billion force carrying particles to the 1 billion atom body pursuant to a locality principle. 

anyways.. 

-y
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386790

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:dtevfiFte2vU2@mid.individual.net...

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

Predicted by theory born out in these results predicted
by itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386796

On 28/06/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dtevfiFte2vU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> 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
>
> Predicted by theory born out in these results predicted
> by itself.
>

There's no way a theory can affect actual results.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386802

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:dtf6f5FbthU2@mid.individual.net...

On 28/06/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dtevfiFte2vU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> 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
>
> Predicted by theory born out in these results predicted
> by itself.
>

|There's no way a theory can affect actual results.

Naive and innocent.
Ond off topic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386859

On 28/06/2016 11:19 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dtf6f5FbthU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 28/06/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:dtevfiFte2vU2@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Predicted by theory born out in these results predicted
>> by itself.
>>
>
> |There's no way a theory can affect actual results.
>
> Naive and innocent.
> Ond off topic.
>

Now you're just being silly.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386880

W dniu środa, 29 czerwca 2016 03:59:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> > |There's no way a theory can affect actual results.
> >
> > Naive and innocent.
> > Ond off topic.
> >
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> Sylvia.

You're silly, Sylvia. Bakers or sailors don't perform 
Your experiments. Why? Because to perform an experiment You
must know how.
Without a theory there is no experiment and no result.
There is no way to avoid the influence of the theory
to the results.
Should be obvious even for a physicist. But it isn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386947

On 29/06/2016 11:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 29 czerwca 2016 03:59:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>
>>> |There's no way a theory can affect actual results.
>>>
>>> Naive and innocent.
>>> Ond off topic.
>>>
>>
>> Now you're just being silly.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> You're silly, Sylvia. Bakers or sailors don't perform
> Your experiments. Why? Because to perform an experiment You
> must know how.

> Without a theory there is no experiment and no result.
> There is no way to avoid the influence of the theory
> to the results.
> Should be obvious even for a physicist. But it isn't.
>

The theory points to a way of performing the experiment, but the 
experimental results stand apart from the theory. In the entangled 
photon case, the results are just a recording of which angle was 
measured, and whether or not the photon was polarised at that angle.

Using the usual Alice and Bob description, Alice's decisions consist of 
measuring at 0 or 30 degrees, and can be recorded as Z or A, and her 
results are just Y or N (being whether or not the photon was polarised 
at that angle). Bob's decisions consist of measuring at 0 or -30 degrees 
also recorded as Z or A, and his results are also Y or N.

So in both cases, the results consist of strings of paired letters: ZY 
ZN, AY and AN.

When we bring the results together, we get pairs of paired letters. In 
each case, the second letters of the pairs are either the same, or they 
are different.

When both first letters are Z, the second letters are always the same. 
When one of the first letters is Z, the second letters differ 1 time in 4.

Now, the crux of the matter is what happens when both first letters are 
A. A purely local model says requires that the second letters differ no 
more than 2 times in 4. They actually differ 3 times in 4.

So the results, considered as just groups of letters, cannot be 
represented by a local model. It is the results themselves that are 
non-locally correlated, without any requirement for them to be 
interpreted in terms of some theory.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387089

W dniu poniedziałek, 27 czerwca 2016 13:52:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Y napisał:
> 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

The EPR paradox is about the human stupidity... it's just a pseudoscience.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web