158 reputation
6
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen 11 hours ago

Mar
9
answered What combinations of realism, non-locality, and contextuality are ruled out in quantum theory?
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@ G. 't Hooft: You don't think it's possible to have a non-local theory of relativity? I mean Einsteinian relativity, not the relativity of Lorentz where there is a hidden preferred frame. So, can we have non-locality and preserve Einstein's insights? You seem to say this is impossible. I'm not so sure.
Feb
27
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@ G. 't Hooft: Why not simply accept non-locality instead? It seems like a much more plausible way to explain things. Don't be afraid of spooks!
Feb
27
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@Gugg Well, it seems you have conceded that there is spooky action at a distance, being that superdeterminism is pseudoscience. Nothing at all wrong with spooky action. It's perfectly compatible with relativity.
Feb
27
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
CFD has nothing at all to do with the argument. plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem Also, there is nothing unattractive about spooky action at a distance.
Feb
26
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@ Gugg, I don't buy it for a second. how is it possible that the electrons always "choose" to be in opposite states given that they didn't make this "decision" right until the moment of measurement?" as another user said. They have to get their instructions somehow. This also has to occure instantly at arbitrary distances. Einstein called this spooky action at a distance.
Feb
26
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@Gugg Well, the interpretation says there is no spooky action at a distance, but this is in disagreement with Bell's theorem which showed that non-locality is a feature which will never go away. Honestly, I'm not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about foundations of QM. The best author on this is Tim Maudlin. You might buy his book Non-locality and relativity. Or, you can read any of his articles. Try this(SECTION 3) ... bslps.be/meaningWF.pdf
Feb
26
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@joshphysics "how is it possible that the electrons always "choose" to be in opposite states given that they didn't make this "decision" right until the moment of measurement." SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE
Feb
26
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@Gugg, I would like to mention that I am not the professor in that video.
Feb
26
comment Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
@Gugg The Consistent histories authors (Griffiths) humiliate themselves and demonstrate that they have no clue at any level what they are talking about in the foundations of quantum mechanics. They give an example of different colored strips of paper, when you see one strip, you know the strip of the other paper. They haven't the slightest clue what Bell's theorem means, because Bell's theorem exactly means that this analogy is completely wrong. They don't understand Bertlemann's socks at all. Nature has spooky action at a distance.
Feb
26
answered Quantum Entanglement - What's the big deal?
Feb
7
comment How does faster than light travel violate causality?
@twistor59: Or anybody else, any comments on my claim that non-locality is compatible with relativity?
Feb
6
comment How does faster than light travel violate causality?
Consider the following: Suppose there is a non-local influence, like in an entanglement experiment. From the frame in which the measurement events are simultaneous, the influence is MUTUAL. Now, according to relativity, there are other frames where the measurement events are not simultaneous. From these frames, the influence would travel forwards in time in one direction, and backwards in time in the other direction, which would result again in a MUTUAL influence. So, there is no conflict with relativity and non-locality.
Jan
24
comment Assumptions in Bell's Theorem
I've been thinking about this more and more lately. I gave you +1 because you are an outstanding contributor. However, I think you are missing the point. To argue that there is non-locality, I simply need to ask the following, "How do the electrons know what to do"? Perhaps, they pre-determine their behavior, but this is exactly what Bell showed fails. But, then how can they know what to do in a standard quantum mechanical picture (e.g. not many worlds)? They make decisions at an instant in time, and the other electron instantly knows what the other is doing. Telepathy?
Jan
23
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
Good answer, and I gave you +1. However, your answer is practically the same as mine. It is true that Bell showed that that the correlation isn't a result of pre-existing properties. In other words, let's say someone wanted to explain how the particles "know what to do". Let's say that this person says, "They discuss how they are going to behave in advance". Bell showed that this explanation can't work. What happens is that they make a decision at some time, and somehow their decisions are transmitted instantly to the other photon, e.g. spooky action at a distance.
Jan
1
answered How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
Dec
30
comment Can we determine whether or not a particle is entangled?
Nope Motl, that explanation doesn't work. The particles have to be communicating or else the properties are pre-determined. If one particle picks a state and the other particle is completely unnafected by this, then the probability function p(y) should not be a function of x as you wrote (this is assuming the states were not pre-determined, which I know very well that you believe this is true. And in fact, this is exactly what Bell showed: no theory with pre-existing properties can reproduce quantum mechanics).
Dec
7
comment Why quantum mechanics?
Excellent answer. What would be really fascinating would be to show Einstein the Bell-GHZ violations. I can't help but wonder what he would make of it. To me, these experiments confirm his deepest concern -- spooky action at a distance!
Dec
7
comment What is background independence and how important is it?
string theory is not background independent in the sense that Einstein called for in his deep essay "The Problem of Space". Please see the amazon review by einsteinianoregonscientist amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3VYU5IAMTJ3R7/…
Oct
23
comment Entangled electron-positron pair
Allow me to apologize for using argumentative language. I simply wanted to discuss the differences between Motl's continuous description of entanglement as a mere correlation and what Bell demonstrated. A complete explanation of why you can't retain locality is given in this document pages 10-12. bslps.be/meaningWF.pdf