How do you understand Non-Locality ?

[ThomasT]

OK, so we have F = G (m1m2/r2), which tells us that the strength of the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to their product and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. What is it that you think this equation is indicating as being propagated instantaneously?

Rigid objects are an even more blatant example of non-locality -- and can be used in a far more obvious fashion to communicate over arbitrary distances.

Can you give an example of whatever it is that you're talking about, because I have no idea what you're talking about and I'd rather not guess.

I find it difficult to believe you can feel competent enough to discuss in threads like this without knowing Newton's law of universal gravitations.

Then don't believe that. Anyway, you misunderstood. My statement was in reference to the wave complex picture.

The OP asked how one understands nonlocality. My answer is that there's nothing to understand. It's a pseudo-problem. Nonlocality doesn't exist.

Of course, if you've got a bona fide example of nonlocality, then I'd be most interested to see it.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, they are communicating non-locally but you can't use this to transfer information because of randomness. But then since particles properties don't exist before measurement, it can't be called superluminal. Somehow it is the whole measurement setup that is non-locally connected 300 billion light years distance. So we call say that the "the entangled disturbances are 'communicating' with each other" but not directy between the particles which don't even have positions before measurement. Hope others can elaborate what I'm describing. ThomasT was saying there was absolutely no non-local correlations, that the correlations is because the entangled particles already have fixed values after emissions. Perhaps ThomasT doesn't understand in the first place what it meant to violate Bell's Theorem. Hope others who knew his arguments before can state his position so as not to waste precious time arguing with him.

You keep saying that "they are communicating nonlocally". I'm wondering how you know this. What exactly do you think is communicating and how is it communicating?

And please don't have me saying things that I didn't say. If you want to learn about this stuff, fine. But if you're determined to make ad hominem statements via your ignorance of this subject, then that's not ok.

The meaning of Bell's theorem is much more subtle than most commentators, especially novices such as yourself, understand -- and it isn't informing us about the reality underlying instrumental behavior. That you think it is, and that you think nonlocality exists, is a testimonial to the confusion in the literature and discussion surrounding Bell's theorem. What Bell's theorem does do is rule out a certain LR formalism (which might or might not be taken as general). It doesn't tell us anything beyond that. If you think it does, then you're just reading something into it which isn't there. Keep in mind that the experiments are measuring a relationship between the entangled disturbances. Given the emission processes and the applicable optics principles and conservation laws, then it isn't necessary to postulate the existence of nonlocal communications between disturbances (which disturbances, according to you, don't exist in the channels between emitter and analyzer/detector anyway) to account for the correlations that are observed.

I'm still curious as to what exactly it is that makes you think that the entangled disturbances (or whatever) are 'communicating' with each other. You never did answer that question. If you would please answer that question straightforwardly and honestly, then perhaps you can make some progress in your understanding.

 

[Varon]

You keep saying that "they are communicating nonlocally". I'm wondering how you know this. What exactly do you think is communicating and how is it communicating?

And please don't have me saying things that I didn't say. If you want to learn about this stuff, fine. But if you're determined to make ad hominem statements via your ignorance of this subject, then that's not ok.

The meaning of Bell's theorem is much more subtle than most commentators, especially novices such as yourself, understand -- and it isn't informing us about the reality underlying instrumental behavior. That you think it is, and that you think nonlocality exists, is a testimonial to the confusion in the literature and discussion surrounding Bell's theorem. What Bell's theorem does do is rule out a certain LR formalism (which might or might not be taken as general). It doesn't tell us anything beyond that. If you think it does, then you're just reading something into it which isn't there. Keep in mind that the experiments are measuring a relationship between the entangled disturbances. Given the emission processes and the applicable optics principles and conservation laws, then it isn't necessary to postulate the existence of nonlocal communications between disturbances (which disturbances, according to you, don't exist in the channels between emitter and analyzer/detector anyway) to account for the correlations that are observed.

I'm still curious as to what exactly it is that makes you think that the entangled disturbances (or whatever) are 'communicating' with each other. You never did answer that question. If you would please answer that question straightforwardly and honestly, then perhaps you can make some progress in your understanding.

It's simple. We don't know if there is communciation because we don't know what interpretation is true. If it's Bohmian Mechanics, then the wave function is indeed communicating. If it is Copenhagen, then wave function is superluminal. But whatever, we don't information can't be transferred by us humans because it uses randomness scrambler. But nature itself is non-local. What you are doing is denying this. That the correlations is because the particles have already properties when it is emitted. And we are just measuring it at the end. This is not the case with Bell's Theorem. Aspect, etc. experiments were designed such that the measurement axis or angles were changed after particles left the emitter. I'd leave the Bell Boys (JesseM, DrChinese) to explain this to you but unfortunately, this thread is booted out of the QM Forum so there is nobody here to enlighten you except perhaps Hurkyl (if he is good with Bell's Theorem at all).

 

[ThomasT]

Ok Varon, I asked you again what it is that makes you think that the entangled disturbances are communicating, and you wrote:

It's simple. We don't know if there is communciation because we don't know what interpretation is true. If it's Bohmian Mechanics, then the wave function is indeed communicating. If it is Copenhagen, then wave function is superluminal. But whatever, we don't information can't be transferred by us humans because it uses randomness scrambler. But nature itself is non-local. What you are doing is denying this. That the correlations is because the particles have already properties when it is emitted. And we are just measuring it at the end. This is not the case with Bell's Theorem. Aspect, etc. experiments were designed such that the measurement axis or angles were changed after particles left the emitter. I'd leave the Bell Boys (JesseM, DrChinese) to explain this to you but unfortunately, this thread is booted out of the QM Forum so there is nobody here to enlighten you except perhaps Hurkyl (if he is good with Bell's Theorem at all).

This, as well as the other nonsense you've written sounds to me like you've dabbled in cursory readings of some of the popular literature. Then you come to PF and make some assertions. I think it would be pretty clear to JesseM and DrC that you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about. They've probably seen this thread and, because of your attitude, decided not to get involved in it.

 

[Evo]

Enough of this, closed. The pettiness, snide remarks, and insults, this is embarrassing and won't be tolerated here.