Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content count

    5593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Mordred last won the day on December 8

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

979 Glorious Leader

2 Followers

About Mordred

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • College Major/Degree
    University of the Caribou
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology and particle physics

Recent Profile Visitors

21869 profile views
  1. Non-locality

    Thought you may find it so as it is a philosophy I live by. Any model, theory, descriptive whether philosophical or otherwise always provides insights. Provided they are employed correctly. Cross examinations are always a valuable tool. Once you close the book on a methodology or topic you hamper your ability to learn a topic. Lol anyone that knows me recognizes I never stop studying. Drives my wife nuts
  2. Non-locality

    Well as stated I have never been one for metaphysical arguments. That is a topic best left for philosophy. I assisted in understanding the physics of non locality in regards to Bells experiment. However I will drop the following argument. The universe doesn't care how we measure nor interpret our observations. All interpretations regardless of physics, mathematics (probablistic or otherwise) and philosophy are simply tools that increase our understanding. All have their place provided properly used and employed within their range of applicability in increasing our understanding.
  3. Non-locality

    Agreed and by all means take your time.
  4. Non-locality

    Indeed it gives everyone a common reference so others may follow as well
  5. Non-locality

    Fair enough I do have a copy of the Maudlin paper I believe you are using. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1826&ved=2ahUKEwi_lvWSiZDYAhUG4WMKHdjrALAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3zCOsG2IwNleXyPMwyVgZo By the way your approach in the this thread has thus far been much improved so I have awarded some reputation points.
  6. Non-locality

    Ok so in the above I mentioned the following Locality: It is possible to separate physical systems so that they do not influence each other as they cannot transmit information with v>c (space-like separation). (remember this is 4D with time). What this means is that we have a dependency on the speed of c for all information exchange from detectors A to B. This limit is limitted by C. So by extending the distance between the two detectors we remove the possibility under this premise of detector or particle A from influencing the results of detector or particle B. Now here is where we get tricky. At the time when the act of entangling a particle pair we had a past interaction between the two particles. This in turn affects the statistical range of the correlation function itself. (non local to either detectors via 4d spacetime) Consider this when you entangle two particles you develop a polarity pair one positive while the other negative. You have no idea which is which, hence the superposition Probability, not actual state . Once you measure one state, you automatically know the other. So this is an example of a Strong and positive Correlation. So from the above the spooky action at a distance is a misnomer. The distance is the past interaction when the particles become entangled. No hidden variable is required to account for this as it is a past causality event. No communication exchange between the detectors nor the particles in the present is required either. Indeed the only practical application in regards to communication isnt FTL but development of encryption keys. (any attemot to measure said encryption destroys the probability correlation function.) Now unfortunately the argument between Bell, QM and EPR breaks down to the mathematical examinations and types of detectors used. So this itself will be extremely tricky without using math. For example Bell (CSHS) only examined the first order commuting operators. He did not examine the non commuting operators. (see what I mean?)
  7. Non-locality

    Well I give you points for being honest, I would ask that you accept that a correlation function itself is a statistical math tool to test the strength of a correlation as a methodology of testing if two or more detectors have a correlation between their datasets. Secondly to accept that this by itself does not imply a cause. If you can agree to that we can move on to the term locality under EPR. Then cover how a past non local to the detectors will affect the present local correlation with regards to entangled particles.
  8. Black hole?

    Interested you really must be careful where you apply fluctuations and excitations. There are numerous phenomena described by physics where these terms are not applicable. For example in this thread the Chandreskar limit or the Black holes rotation isn't an excitation or fluctuation so it is incorrect to state everything is. The problem is you tend to take those terms out of context when examining different theories and models. They apply well to QM and QFT but one of the main reasons is these are schotastic treatments that include probability in their examination. Though not in every instance. You need to be careful to understand when those terms can be appropriately applied. If your describing something that has no wavefunctions those terms are not applicable. Now dark energy, if I examine a quantum space example DE under phase space which is extremely localized this is appropriate but if I examine a global space where these fluctuations are essentially washed out via a different examination ie the FRW metric itself and the difference in size scale under examination where DE is constant these terms are not appropriate. Even under QFT and QM certain mathematical terms has no wavefunction example a manifold. It may be comprised of excitations but the manifold itself doesn't have a wavefunction. Its questionable whether or not some of those phase transitions are reversible under compression as opposed to expansion. A large part of the reason being availability of the correct particle species during the transition stages. The process of nucleosynthesis coupled with inflation isn't nearly the same as compression. So the sequence of nucleosynthesis may not be reversible as you won't have the supercooling then reheating phase transitions via compression. That in and of itself will alter the applicable phase transitions
  9. So thats how you do it thanks
  10. Non-locality

    Ok lets take this in stages. The first stage is to understand one of the simplest Correlation functions. (related to the x and y graphs) Pearson Correlation function. Key points. Causation is not involved. Secondly this function only works with roughly linear trends between two statistical graphs, charts etc. Take two tables of variable change, lets use x and y. - The two variables may or may not have similar trends which is what the correlation function Tests for. Rather than post the math I will provide a reference with some graphs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient Here is a calculator to play around with this. http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/pearson/default2.aspx. I am going to save a considerable time on this by presenting the following arxiv paper which includes Bells correlation equation 2 and EPR correlation and the quantum mechanical correlation equation 5 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0407041&ved=2ahUKEwidjJvgg4_YAhVPzGMKHfMJDlsQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw27e5Ba6qvsEH9eTBADtrT9 (working from phone). I will let you absorb this first before we define Einstein locality under EPR. Locality: It is possible to separate physical systems so that they do not influence each other as they cannot transmit information with v>c (space-like separation). (remember this is 4D with time) (considering this is often misunderstood even anong physicists let alone laymen) lol
  11. Non-locality

    No problem this is an important topic and I would like some time to properly put it together with a worked example of testing how stongly correlated two datasets are. So let me work up a decent writeup I need to familiarize this under three specific treatments with regards to Bell type experiments. In particular the nature of the debate in the references above.
  12. Non-locality

    Ok I actually like the approach you have above. You have raised a very poorly understood aspect with several experiments. Including Bells. There is a key term you mentioned above that is vital to understand first. Correlation function. You may or may not recognize this term from statistic textbooks. However it is a function that tests if two datasets, graphs, charts etc will follow the same trends. (are you willing to discuss this first, then examine what this means with regards to Locality/non locality) ? I will be honest here as I believe this is extremely important to address first in order to properly address the non locality. ( ie with entangled particle pairs)
  13. Interferometers and Superposition

    The reason for superposition is to make predictions of all Possible outcomes. It is what makes the model Robust. It is simply a mathematical (Statistical technique) which I was very clear in stating. That statistical method is also REQUIRED because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle itself. You cannot with absolute certainty know the position and momentum of a particle. Hence using statistics. (Which I did state before in your other locked thread) Even under Bohmian this is true as the equations included this statistical nature.
  14. Interferometers and Superposition

    Yeesh didn't I explain how De-Broglie is involved in that quote ? It is literally involved to understand that passage. Man oh man Do you not understand the term Superposition? Once you determine a state there is no longer a superposition state. It is a determined state. Is that plain enough?
  15. Interferometers and Superposition

    I'm trying to help you understand why superposition itself is involved. Hence needing to be clear about wave particle duality. The two are related. Doesn't the term interference not suggest wavefunction collapse to you? Or doesn't the difference between a probability wavefunction and a measured wavefunction not suggest two different wavefunction? Because quite frankly it is that simple to the distinction between "which path information" the information of the wavefunction given the "Specific type of wavefunction. In simplist possible descriptive. A determined wave function as opposed to a probablist wavefunction. Simple When you measure particles you measure interference patterns. Am I going too fast for you?