Recent content by Pio2001

Hi ! Not exactly. It says that it can't be both local and deterministic. Realism is a rather philosophical concept. It depends. If you are talking about a superposition of two different positions in space, in a double slit, for example, non-locality explains that when it is clear that...

They are not incompatible. Especially since the transactional interpretation is non-local.

No No No According to wikipedia, the prism is there is order to "send it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B". As Joseph14 said, phase difference is what is measured in this experiment. The interference pattern is a measurement of phase...

I don't know about interpretations where there is a factor that exists, but cannot be known, even in theory. I've heard about speculations about information and entropy : some events may not be observable because recording their information would violate the second principle of thermodynamics.

I don't see much difference with the simple statement that when you are dead, you can't realize it, so it doesn't matter to kill yourself right now.

Exactly the way you stated above : For moving charges you must integrate over their past positions taking into account the finite speed of light. It seems to me that this is the meaning of the locality hypothesis used in Bell's theorem : the movement of a charge in A (x_A, y_A, z_A, t_A) can't...

In the hypothesis "If A and B are two space-time regions separated by a space-like interval, then nothing that is done in A can have an effect in B and conversely", A and B are not place, nor objects. They are space-time regions. The "past of A" is a space-time region that is completely outside...

Yes, I agree. We can't tell anything about the locality or not of this situation : imagine that Alice sends a supraluminic message to Bob. She obviously violates locality. However, all your constatations still hold : The evolution of their joint state over this region of space-time...

You're right, the confusion of Alice's state with the joint state of Alice and Bob should be avoided. That's why I prefer the second formulation : the joint state completely evolves in a time t, that is strictly inferior to x/c, where x is the distance between Alice and Bob : this is non local.

Said more properly, the non-separable object that Alice and Bob represents evolves in a time t that is inferior to x/c, with x being its spatial extention, which is a violation of special relativity.

The mechanism that transforms |O\rangle_i, the observer and its measurement device in its initial orientation, into |O\phi\rangle_i, the observer and its measurement device in its final orientation \phi, is not explicit, but yes, we can assume that this is the result of a quantum evolution (with...

I don't understand... Why are there no interferences with photons in Marlan Scully's experiment ? And if Bob projects the quantum state in an eigenstate corresponding to one slit only, closing one of his slits, how can there be interferences ?

Not necessarily. For example the charges in A can emit an electromagnetic wave by themselves if they are in an initial configuration that has enough potential energy. That's true in electrostatic. In electrodynamics, those laws require that electromagnetic waves travel at a speed equal to c.

It is true that with the singlet state entanglement, there is no reason to suppose that interference would not occur with a double slit. But the experiment proposed by gtwace is different : the electrons are supposed to be entangled in such a way that if one electron takes one slit, then its...

It's not that weird indeed. No physical law is violated at the observational level. But the state / behaviour is not predetermined. If it was, Bell has proven that a given inequality would be met, while it is not. Knowing the measurement result on one electron, we can tell the probability of...