Recent content by PeterDonis

Moderator's note: Based on the subject matter, this thread has been moved to the QM interpretations subforum.

It doesn't seem like it to me. See below. This looks like a classic interpretation question. "Exhaustive ontological independence" is not something you'll find anywhere in the math of QM. It's the sort of claim a particular interpretation might make. You're not asking how QM makes accurate...

Yes. And then when we learn General Relativity, we learn that "no matter or energy" means that the stress-energy tensor is zero, but that in itself does not prevent spacetime from being curved, because there are solutions of the Einstein Field Equation with zero stress-energy tensor that are...

Your "explanation" in the other thread was wrong. See my responses there. Please do not clutter multiple threads with wrong information.

None of these limits are relevant to lght. They are limits as you apply Lorentz transformations to timelike vectors, but light is not described by a timelike vector, it's described by a null vector. The operation of Lorentz transformations on null vectors is fundamentally different from their...

Where? Please give a specific reference. This depends on what you mean by "mass". The invariant mass of the object doesn't change, but its "relativistic mass" does. "Relativistic mass" is not considered a very useful concept now, but it does include the increase of inertia that you describe...

It's the generator of time translations, but that is the energy operator, by Noether's theorem. Please be more specific. A reference would help. We do that as a heuristic because we know it happens to work for that example. But that's not an actual derivation; it's just a heuristic that...

Because that's the definition of the Hamiltonian in QM: it's the energy operator. This doesn't make sense. A classical model is not a quantum model. Classically the Hamiltonian is a function, not an operator. I'm not sure what you mean here. "Classical" and "quantum" are models, not physical...

This thread is now closed since the topic has been sufficiently addressed. Thanks to all who participated.

Which it can't, for the reason I already gave. Please do not keep restating the same personal speculation. Saying the measurements are spacelike separated is not an explanation of "how this could occur faster than the speed of light". It's just restating the fact that anything that "propagates"...

As I have said, any discussion of this in the interpretations subforum would have to be based on some particular interpretation that is in the published literature. So you would need to first take some time to familiarize yourself with that literature. The interpretations subforum is not for...

Yes, the fact that "causes" implies that one thing is the cause and the other is the effect, which means the ordering has to make a difference. Whereas the experimental fact (as well as the QM theoretical prediction) is, as I have said, that the order of the measurements makes no difference. So...

Nobody's intuitions are worth much here. That's a big part of what Feynman meant when he said nobody knows how it can be like that. Intuitions can be retrained, at least to an extent, but that requires taking the time to become thoroughly familiar wth the math of QM and how it makes...

No. The fact that the measurements happen to be spacelike separated in a particular case is actually a red herring. If you do the math, you will realize that the correlations are the same regardless of the spacetime relationship of the two measurements! In other words, we have two entangled...

No, there isn't, because of this: QM satisfies what's called the "no signaling theorem", which is the mathematical version of what you state here: that if particle A and particle B are entangled, and you measure particle A, there is no observable effect on particle B. And that means it's...