- #71
ThomasT
- 529
- 0
Ok. But quantum nonlocality refers to logical rather than physical connections, and is just one of many misnomers that have become defacto standards in the literature.zenith8 said:We define nonlocality as a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings.
This is just a result of the experimental designs necessary to produce entanglement. No instantaneous physical connection between A and B is implied. Quantum nonlocality is acausal.zenith8 said:Consider an EPR experiment, measuring spins. With parallel analyzers, we find that measurement of the spin on one side instantly predicts the result on the other.
I'm not familiar with the socks argument, but entanglement experiments are designed to impart a common property to spatially separated entities, and then correlate joint detections with a global parameter. No ftl causal connection or transmission between A and B is necessary to at least begin to understand entanglement correlations. But, of course, events on either side will influence the global experimental situation.zenith8 said:If you do not believe one side can have a causal influence on the other, you require the results on both sides to be determined in advance (the Bertlmann's socks argument).
Any formulation which doesn't take into account the global nature of entanglement experimental designs will conflict with the quantum mechanical account, and the experimental results.zenith8 said:But this has implications for non-parallel settings (e.g. measure spin on axes 45 degrees apart in the two wings) which conflict with quantum mechanics (Bell).
No. Bell's analysis showed that a separable, or factorable (which was taken to be the most important feature of any lhv ansatz), formulation was incompatible with the qm account of entanglement.zenith8 said:Bell's analysis showed that any account of quantum phenomena needs to be non-local, not just any 'hidden variables' account i.e. nonlocality is implied by the predictions of standard quantum theory itself.
Such a separable lhv account would only be possible if quantum behavior were trackable to an extent that's precluded by the principles forwarded in the CI.
The predictions and form of standard quantum theory don't imply physical nonlocality. They're a product of our ignorance of what's actually going on beneath the instrumental level. They imply that any attempt at an account of underlying causes will always be an exercise in speculative metaphysics.
Faulty reasoning.zenith8 said:Thus, if nature is governed by these predictions (which it is, according to real experiments) then nature is non-local.
The correlations are the product of the (global) nature of entanglement experimental designs. It has nothing to do with ftl or instantaneous anything traveling between spacelike separated events.zenith8 said:This is essentially because the many-particle wave function in the Schroedinger equation is defined on the configuration space of the system, an abstraction which combines or binds distant particles into a single irreducible reality.
As I mentioned in a previous post, physical action-at-a-distance is meaningless. However, its logical counterpart is evident in any entanglement experiment. Events at either A or B (instantaneously ) affect the global experimental situation.zenith8 said:So nonlocality - spooky action at a distance if you like - sounds strange and yet it is experimentally verifiable.
This is the mistake that leads to unresolvable disputes about various weird entailments: assume that the deterministic components of the formalism are descriptions of underlying behavior and see where that takes you.zenith8 said:However, standard QM is not self-consistent due to the measurement problem. This is solvable only by granting real physical existence to theory objects.
Probabilities of instrumental behavior :uhh:? If limiting our statements on reality to the only level of reality that we can unambiguously communicate anything about is anti-realistic, then, yes, standard qm is anti-realistic -- and realism refers to metaphysical speculation.zenith8 said:Standard QM is thus fundamentally an anti-realist stance - the wave function is just about probabilities, but probabilities of what?
Nobody is denying that what happens between emitters and detectors is real. But what can you say about it apart from the instrumental behavior? I agree that some inferences seem inescapable. But combining the more or less descriptive or realistic (read: speculative metaphysics) components of both classical and quantum physics falls far short of a comprehensive understanding of Nature.zenith8 said:Something does travel - of course - along different paths in, say, an interference experiment; to refuse to call it 'real' is merely to play with words.
Deutsch is wrong in his evaluation of the CI, which is, in its entirety, the only comprehensive interpretation of quantum theory. The other so-called interpretations are actually just metaphysical adjuncts which, in order to actually do any real physics, must resort to the same (instrumental) probability calculus which characterizes standard qm.zenith8 said:Instrumentalist Copenhagen QM is effectively 'an idea for making it easier to evade the implications of quantum theory for the nature of reality' (Deutsch).
Anyway, despite the CI, we're still free to speculate about the deep nature of reality based on quantum theory and experiments or any other source.
Maybe the standard fundamental theory(ies) will become more 'realistic'. Be patient. Physics is in its infancy.zenith8 said:The positivist belief that empirical adequacy plus a formalized proof procedure is the best any theory can properly aspire to is - when you think about it - bizarre.
Regarding ftl transmissions -- who knows, maybe they're real, however your thinking on, and reasons for believing in, spooky action at a distance are definitely flawed.
Finally, to your four points vis Maudlin:
Correct.zenith8 said:* Violation of Bell's inequality does not require superluminal matter or energy transport
Correct.zenith8 said:* Violation of Bell's inequality does not entail the possibility of superluminal signalling
Incorrect.zenith8 said:* Violation of Bell's inequality does require superluminal causal connections.
Incorrect.zenith8 said:* Violation of Bell's inequality can be accomplished only if there is superluminal information transmission.
Incompatibility between the salient features of the lhv formulation and the experimental design is sufficient to produce violation of the Bell inequality.
Violation of a Bell inequality is expected in experiments designed to produce statistically nonseparable data sets vis locally transmitted common cause(s).
Violation of Bell's inequality is used as an indicator of quantum entanglement. It isn't, afaik, considered an indicator of ftl or instantaneous physical propagations.