Jump to content
Schmelzer

Entanglement (split from unification?)

Recommended Posts

On 1/18/2020 at 12:34 PM, Markus Hanke said:

Violation of Bell’s inequalities does not imply such as thing as “action at a distance” - which is in itself a meaningless concept. Quantum entanglement is simply a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes; there is no causative “action” involved. 

Name it causal influence faster than light, whatever.  

You are, of course, free to hold your belief, but to save the Minkowski interpretation against the Lorentz ether you have to give up a lot:  Realism (in the very weak form of the EPR criterion of reality), causality (in any form which contains Reichenbach's common cause principle) and, following my argumentation in 

Schmelzer, I. (2017). EPR-Bell realism as a part of logic, arxiv:1712.04334

even logic (the "logic of plausible reasoning" or the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability).  

Of course, this is only special pleading in defense of holy metaphysical principles about the fundamental character of relativistic symmetry.  Nobody would reject all these principles in any part of science except the violations of the Bell inequalities.  Else, you could as well stop doing science, and first of all the tobacco industry would be happy, given that all that with lung cancer and so on are simply statistical correlation between measurement outcomes; there is no causative “action” involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand that the correlation functions for entangled particles has nothing to do with cause and effect from particle A to particle B ?

For example in a beam splitter if you take a monochromatic light beam and split it you can derive a polarity correlation function of the two possible polarities. Then you factor in the position and polarity detection of your detectors.

When you measure one particle you know the state of the other particle. No action is involved. No communication or influence from particle A to B is involved.

Not really sure from your last post if you realize that or not. 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You do understand that the correlation functions for entangled particles has nothing to do with cause and effect from particle A to particle B ?

For example in a beam splitter if you take a monochromatic light beam and split it you can derive a polarity correlation function of the two possible polarities. Then you factor in the position and polarity detection of your detectors.

When you measure one particle you know the state of the other particle. No action is involved. No communication or influence from particle A to B is involved.

If you think so, you have not understood the very point of Bell's theorem.  

If there is no influence from particle A to B, then the 100% correlation if the measurement at B is in the same direction has to be explained by a common cause.  Thus, at the time of the measurement, it has to be already well-defined by this common cause.  This holds for all directions.  But then you can prove the Bell inequalities.  Which have been falsified.  

So, either you give up the common cause principle (and make tobacco industry happy) or you have to explain the correlation by a direct causal influence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Split from the unification? topic, since this has nothing to do with the question of the OP

If you are going to make claims about entanglement, please back them up with citations (preferably not to just your own work)

Also, please drop the tobacco industry remarks, as they have nothing to do with entanglement and are off-topic 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

If you think so, you have not understood the very point of Bell's theorem.  

If there is no influence from particle A to B, then the 100% correlation if the measurement at B is in the same direction has to be explained by a common cause.  Thus, at the time of the measurement, it has to be already well-defined by this common cause.  This holds for all directions.  But then you can prove the Bell inequalities.  Which have been falsified.  

So, either you give up the common cause principle (and make tobacco industry happy) or you have to explain the correlation by a direct causal influence.  

Really and how do you define under physics a hidden preferred  frame ? Did you even bother to account for the entangled particle preparedness ?

As well as to how the correlation functions arise due to the experimental apparatus 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really and how do you define under physics a hidden preferred  frame ? Did you even bother to account for the entangled particle preparedness ?

I define a hidden preferred frame by equations for the preferred coordinates.  I use harmonic coordinates for this.  Given that the generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity is my own contribution, I cannot refer here to other people than myself.  But this should not be a problem, it is published in a good peer-reviewed journal:

Schmelzer, I. (2012). A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, arXiv:gr-qc/0205035

Once there is a preferred absolute time coordinate, I can use it for quantum theory as usual.  In particular,  I can use it for the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, or Nelsonian stochastics, or other realistic and causal interpretations of quantum theory. Once I actually prefer Caticha's entropic dynamics, here the reference to it: 

Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A 44 , 225303, arxiv:1005.2357

Once I can reuse all what is available in non-relativistic quantum theory, there is no problem with entangled particles in the relativistic domain too.  

 

Edited by Schmelzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So post those equations. Show me a viable hidden preferred frame that is Lorentz invariant. 

 How can I apply a hidden frame as a valid reference frame ?

How do you mathematically prove that frame as a preferred  frame ?

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

I define a hidden preferred frame by equations for the preferred coordinates.  I use harmonic coordinates for this.  Given that the generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity is my own contribution, I cannot refer here to other people than myself.

!

Moderator Note

Well, then, this will be put in speculations and you will limit your discussion of this subject to this thread, and this thread alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So post those equations. Show me a viable hidden preferred frame that is Lorentz invariant. 

 How can I apply a hidden frame as a valid reference frame ?

How do you mathematically prove that frame as a preferred  frame ?

\[\square X^a = \partial_m g^{ma}\sqrt{-g}  = 0.  \]

Why do you think that a hidden preferred frame has to be Lorentz invariant?   It certainly does not have to be Lorentz invariant.  You can apply a preferred frame like a usual frame.  The frame is, according to the equations, preferred if the preferred coordinates are harmonic.  Thus, I have to prove that the preferred coordinates are harmonic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you have to prove such a frame is preferred under some form of basis as your dealing with vectors, covectors, spinors and bispinors. As applicable to how a particle state is described.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No you have to prove such a frame is preferred under some form of basis as your dealing with vectors, covectors, spinors and bispinors. As applicable to how a particle state is described.

I don't understand this point. The rules how to handle vectors, other tensor fields and spinors in spacetime are valid for all coordinates, and can be applied to the preferred coordinates too. 

What makes them preferred is that one has to fix one to define, for example, Bohmian trajectories.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes it preferred considering the creation and annihilation operators already employ the harmonic oscillator ?

What transformation rules allow a harmonic field become preferred over a macro field ?

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What makes it preferred considering the creation and annihilation operators already employ the harmonic oscillator ?

What transformation rules allow a harmonic field become preferred over a macro field ?

I don't understand these questions.  What makes the harmonic coordinates preferred is the interpretation which gives these coordinates a preferred status.  This has no relation at all to transformation rules or creation and annihilation operators.  Preferred coordinates are coordinates, not fields.  What means "macro field"?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretations is no replacement for mathematically defining a preferred frame. A preferred frame isn't some arbitrary choice but needs to be mathematically shown to offer some mathematical advantage.

How can you use a hidden frame that by definition of hidden you cannot measure and by definition of hidden has no measurable action.

I'm positive you know what action is under physics definition.

Have you never considered why GR or SR states there are no preferred frames ? 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Interpretations is no replacement for mathematically defining a preferred frame. A preferred frame isn't some arbitrary choice but needs to be mathematically shown to offer some mathematical advantage.

The mathematical definition has been given by the harmonic condition. There is no such requirement for offering a mathematical advantage. Nonetheless, of course, harmonic coordinates essentially simplify the Einstein equations.  This is well-known since they have been invented. You can find a lot about the mathematical advantages of harmonic coordinates in 

Fock, V.A. (1964). The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, Pergamon Press, Oxford

This simplification has also some qualitative aspects, namely the Einstein equations obtain the form G^{mn} =  g^{ab}\partial_a\partial_b g^{mn} + terms in first order derivatives, the highest order derivatives no longer mix.  This was essential for Bruhat to prove local existence and uniqueness theorems for the Einstein equations - in harmonic coordinates. This is mentioned, for example, in  http://www.math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/180702/slide/Sekiguchi_MSJ-SI_pdf.pdf

Edited by Schmelzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to study preference under frames of reference. Quite frankly I can argue that a frame containing measurable observable quantities is preferred over some unmeasurable hidden frame.I would have the advantage of a distinct and determinate state.

Where  as A hidden field can have whatever arbitrary field value that would be unprovable. Ie I could slap whatever function I arbitrarily choose and there would be no way to determine it's accuracy or use it as a reference point.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah simple physics definitions.

How do you use a hidden quantity as a reference? 

How can you use a hidden frame as a reference ? Try looking up lab frame or centre of mass frame as viable references.

Quote

In

 physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements within that frame 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

How do you fix a unique quantity in a hidden oscillating field to allow orientations.

How does that equation you post count as a reference frame under the physics definition above ?

Let me ask you simple question if I wish to orient the polarity of particle A to a reference point would I not be better off using a macro coordinate such as the detector itself. Rather than some hidden reference ?

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Yeah simple physics definitions.

How do you use a hidden quantity as a reference? 

I have equations for it.  A solution of these equations contains also the hidden quantity.  Don't forget, the hidden preferred coordinates are also simply coordinates, so the solution in the hidden preferred coordinates can be used as any system of coordinates in GR too.  What do you miss about using it?  

There are additional things which you cannot do in general coordinates.  Like computing Bohmian trajectories.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So post those equations simply stating I have the equations isn't sufficient.

 Tell me define a defined point on an error bar probability function that is fluctuating in time.

The issue isn't Bohmian trajectories it's the preferred hidden reference.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So post those equations simply stating I have the equations isn't sufficient.

 Tell me define a defined point on an error bar probability function that is fluctuating in time.

Ok, second time the harmonic condition:

\[ \square X^\alpha = \partial_\mu (g^{\mu\alpha}\sqrt{-g}) = 0 \]

The second sentence makes no sense to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh your obviously not getting what a reference frame entails. Let me know when you do.

Ok let's try this I want a mapping of the Bohmian configuration space to some reference point.

Obviously mapping configuration space to a Euclid space is trivial but your reference by the above equation isn't a space

I don't know why I would need to explain what a reference frame entails in basic kinematics

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny part is that Bohmian mechanics does not allow for superluminal action or causation. That is prohibited by the theory. However you still have to produce a test that shows an absolute frame. (As per one of your referenced papers) which is also your own...

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Sigh your obviously not getting what a reference frame entails. Let me know when you do.

Ok let's try this I want a mapping of the Bohmian configuration space to some reference point.

Obviously mapping configuration space to a Euclid space is trivial but your reference by the above equation isn't a space

I'm obviously not getting what you want. I work more in the context of GR, used to work with general systems of coordinates, the special ones known as "inertial reference frames" play no role there.  And, given that SR is only the particular case of \(g^{mn}(x) = \eta^{mn}\), I see no reason to care especially about those frames. 

The three spatial coordinates \(X^i\) define absolute space, and do this at any given moment of absolute time \(T=X^0\). This makes them coordinates.  The meaning of "your reference by the above equation isn't a space" remains mystical to me.  The equations have been given, every valid particular solution contains four functions \(X^a(x)\) which define the preferred coordinates. 

Quote

"I don't know why I would need to explain what a reference frame entails in basic kinematics"  

You simply have to explain what you want. If you think there is some particular property necessary for kinematics or whatever, name it.  If necessary, give a reference to standard GR textbooks where the thing you miss is explained and described. 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

The funny part is that Bohmian mechanics does not allow for superluminal action or causation. That is prohibited by the theory. However you still have to produce a test that shows an absolute frame. (As per one of your referenced papers) which is also your own...

That's wrong.  Causation is superluminal in dBB theory.  It cannot be used to transfer signals, and this property holds only in quantum equilibrium. But the Bohmian velocity explicitly depends on the global configuration, thus, also on parts of the configuration which are far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No in Bohmian mechanics the field generates the superluminal interference but that doesn't violate GR. You still have the correlations to the initial entanglement process. 

You should easily understand what I have getting at if you understand reference frames as per GR and under GR there are non inertial as well as inertial reference frames.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.