- #246

AndreiB

- 192

- 33

Correlations at different points in space are nonlocal, by definition, because they depend on what happens at both points. No matter how you try to explain them.

OK, then a chess table is a non-local object according to your definition. Such "non-locality" is of no concern since it does not contradict relativity. The type of non-locality which is forced upon us by the EPR argument (if hidden variables are denied) does contradict relativity because you need to postulate a causal link between space-like measurements. Let's call this relevant type of nonlocality FTLC (faster then light causality).

I discuss locality in Section 4.4-4.5 of Part II of my preprint series, and in Chapter 13.5-13.6 of my book.

I red those chapters but I admit I do not understand what is your explanation for the perfect EPR anti correlations (I think it's better to only discuss the case of measurements performed on the same axis, say Z and not bother with rotating detectors).

You say:

"The thermal interpretation explicitly acknowledges that all quantum objects (systems and subsystems) have an uncertain, not sharply definable (and sometimes extremely extended) position, hence are intrinsically nonlocal.

Thus it violates the assumptions of Bell’s theorem and its variations."

I do not think this is true. A pair of rotating billiard balls or a long rod are extended objects, "intrinsically nonlocal" - according to your definition of locality - but you cannot violate Bell's inequalities with them. At no point does Bell assume that the entangled system must consist of a single point in space which seems the only object you would call "local".

"Attempting to literally interpret the two photons in a system with an entangled 2-photon state leads

to paradoxes related to seemingly acausal nonlocal correlations."

As pointed out earlier, the EPR argument makes no assumption regarding the nature of those photons, fields, or whatever they might be. It only looks at the properly recorded measurement results.

"Whatever Alice and Bob measure far away depends on the whole 2-photon system."

So, this extended 2-photon system is a hidden variable?

"Over long distances, the uncertainty intrinsic to the 2-photon system becomes huge"

And how is this supposed to help us? Being more uncertain does not seem to help achieving the perfect predictions possible in the EPR situation. And, again, why is this relevant?

"The object becomes vastly extended – so nonlocal that the assumptions in Bell’s argument are obviously violated."

No, not any large object can pass Bell's theorem.

"Alice’s and Bob’s position are causally unrelated."

Agreed, this is what relativity implies.

"But something else from Alice becomes known to Bob faster than light – conditional information."

This is another way of saying that EPR correlations are known to exist. We know that.

"In Bell-type experiments, the conditional information and the correlations become actual only when someone (like Charles) has access to the actual data resolving the condition"

True, but irrelevant.

"It is easily seen that extended causality is observed."

This is an assertion. It does not follow from anything you said before.

You conclude:

"This doesn”t explain everything about the observed correlations"

It doesn't explain anything. If your "extended object" determine the measurement results you have a hidden-variable theory and is consistent with relativity. If your "extended object" doesn't determine the results then it must behave like a perfectly rigid object which is impossible in relativity. Which is it?