Non-local effects and information

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mosassam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Effects Information
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of non-local effects observed in EPR-Bell experiments, particularly focusing on the nature of information transfer between entangled particles. Participants explore various interpretations of quantum mechanics, the concept of locality, and the philosophical implications of these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that measuring one particle in a Bell correlation instantaneously affects the properties of the second particle, raising questions about whether information has been exchanged.
  • Others argue that the terminology of "exchange" or "transmission" may be misleading, as it implies movement that does not occur in the same way as classical information transfer.
  • Different interpretations of quantum mechanics are discussed, including transactional interpretation and many-worlds interpretation, with no consensus on which is correct.
  • One participant proposes a "Unified Whole" perspective, suggesting that all connections and relationships between particles exist as part of a single system, negating the need for information to "travel."
  • Another participant describes the wave function of entangled particles as existing over both space and time, indicating that measurement collapses the wave function but does not allow for information to be sent.
  • Concerns are raised about the introduction of philosophical concepts like the "Unified Whole" without clear definitions, questioning their relevance to the physics involved.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of locality and realism in the context of quantum mechanics, suggesting that these concepts may not be as straightforward as traditionally thought.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of information transfer in EPR-Bell experiments, with multiple competing views and interpretations remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on definitions of terms like "Unified Whole," the dependence on various interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the unresolved nature of the relationship between locality and realism.

  • #31
Sticking strictly to the quote you have decided to analyse.
Growing and Dying are presented as mutually exclusive states. When introduced to your 'proof' you will find point 4: contravened.
Are you familiar with the phrase 'figure of speech'?
Do you have anything to add to the actual thread?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mosassam said:
Sticking strictly to the quote you have decided to analyse.
Growing and Dying are presented as mutually exclusive states. When introduced to your 'proof' you will find point 4: contravened.
Nope - point 4 simply says that all non-dying objects are growing objects (which is completely consistent with dying and growing being mutually exclusive).

I agree this is off topic, so I'm happy to stop here :smile:
 
  • #33
The original post on this was during February?
Oh Well.

I would suspect it’s important to plead ignorance before uttering
a single “key-stroke”.

Especially when replying to something like Non-Local Effects/affects.
(Of which the topic seems to have dried-up based on the last post(s) dated nearly a long “time” ago.)

Never the less. Here’s some more “hash” to add to this thread.

“Time”, and the moment of time when an observation is made seems to trump a lot of stuff.

For as time elapses, so do all of the other measured/observed treasures.

To acknowledge, and accept such a stark fact can at times be humiliating.

Of course it’s changed! It’s right now, and not just a moment ago!

In the meantime?

John
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K