Towards a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause?

[merlin wood]

I suggest that the quantum entangled connection pre-exists in the real world prior to any measurement, and there's no definite argument that can prove me wrong.

 

Although, of course, there's no such argument to prove me right either - or at least, not from any evidence of quantum behaviour alone.

[Royston]

Sorry to disappoint Klaynos, but there's quite a bit to cover i.e I'm not sure where to start, and it's kinda pointless if merlin wood is familiar with all of this, however...

 

I suggest that the quantum entangled connection pre-exists in the real world prior to any measurement, and there's no definite argument that can prove me wrong.

 

Fancy having a crack at stating your argument succinctly, in a couple of paragraphs. Every theory in physics I've studied, is summed up in a few, clearly defined principles and (shock horror) math...I guess we'll have to skip the latter.

 

I realize you've 'heard this all before', but give it a shot. Also, if you can run me through the below, I'm listening i.e if you, at the very least, can explain the equations (not necessarily manipulate them) then you have a more solid footing on expanding on the principles governed by the dreaded mathematics e.g what's unique about the wavefunction of an entangled state, as opposed to a wavefunction that has indeterminate spin components, mathematically speaking ?

 

[math]\psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}[\psi_+(A)\psi\_ (B) - \psi\_ (A)\psi_+ (B)][/math]

 

Although, of course, there's no such argument to prove me right either - or at least, not from any evidence of quantum behaviour alone.

 

How's that ?

[Klaynos]

I suggest that the quantum entangled connection pre-exists in the real world prior to any measurement, and there's no definite argument that can prove me wrong.

 

It does exist before measurement, but not after...

 

IAlthough, of course, there's no such argument to prove me right either - or at least, not from any evidence of quantum behaviour alone.

 

Ah, so it's not science then.

[merlin wood]

It does exist before measurement, but not after....

 

I'm saying I'm not concerned about what happens after measurement

 

Ah, so it's not science then.

 

How do you know?

 

Sorry to disappoint Klaynos, but there's quite a bit to cover i.e I'm not sure where to start, and it's kinda pointless if merlin wood is familiar with all of this, however...

 

Fancy having a crack at stating your argument succinctly, in a couple of paragraphs. Every theory in physics I've studied, is summed up in a few, clearly defined principles and (shock horror) math...I guess we'll have to skip the latter.

 

I realize you've 'heard this all before', but give it a shot. Also, if you can run me through the below, I'm listening i.e if you, at the very least, can explain the equations (not necessarily manipulate them) then you have a more solid footing on expanding on the principles governed by the dreaded mathematics e.g what's unique about the wavefunction of an entangled state, as opposed to a wavefunction that has indeterminate spin components, mathematically speaking ?

 

[math]\psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}[\psi_+(A)\psi\_ (B) - \psi\_ (A)\psi_+ (B)][/math]

 

Quantum entanglement describes the correlation at a distance between quantum objects and can describe this correlation in terms of the relationship between particular forms of behaviour of quantum objects. So that eg the measurement of the property spin-up in one quantum component requires the other component to be in the spin-down direction.

 

While experimental test results upon photons with regard to their polarised properties of behaviour can be considered to indicate that the entanglement effect can occur without varying at distances up to 144km at least.

 

So you can ask how is it that this correlation can be measured? Is quantum entanglement an effect without a cause? Why shouldn't one insist that for this quantum behaviour correlation to be measured there needs to be something that acts so as to maintain this quantum object behaviour reationship? Could any measurement or mathematical calculation describe enough details of such a cause from effects that have no measured strength? If not, how could could the action of such a "spooky" or nonlocally acting cause be described or represented?

 

It may not look like it at all, but perhaps there is larger scale observable evidence that clearly supports an appropriate non-local causal quantum hypthesis. And the justification for and development of this appropriate quantum hypothesis could be essential to any general theoretical argument.

[Klaynos]

I'm saying I'm not concerned about what happens after measurement

 

 

 

How do you know?

 

Because of the quote I quoted.

 

Quantum entanglement describes the correlation at a distance between quantum objects and can describe this correlation in terms of the relationship between particular forms of behaviour of quantum objects. So that eg the measurement of the property spin-up in one quantum component requires the other component to be in the spin-down direction.

 

While experimental test results upon photons with regard to their polarised properties of behaviour can be considered to indicate that the entanglement effect can occur without varying at distances up to 144km at least.

 

So you can ask how is it that this correlation can be measured? Is quantum entanglement an effect without a cause? Why shouldn't one insist that for this quantum behaviour correlation to be measured there needs to be something that acts so as to maintain this quantum object behaviour reationship? Could any measurement or mathematical calculation describe enough details of such a cause from effects that have no measured strength? If not, how could could the action of such a "spooky" or nonlocally acting cause be described or represented?

 

Surely the "cause" is just whatever created the entangled particles?

 

It may not look like it at all, but perhaps there is larger scale observable evidence that clearly supports an appropriate non-local causal quantum hypthesis. And the justification for and development of this appropriate quantum hypothesis could be essential to any general theoretical argument.

 

You'll need to quantify this and relate it mathematically to entanglement.

[merlin wood]

Forget about it. I've other irons in the fire

Edited July 20, 2008 by merlin wood

[Norman Albers]

Have you checked out Anthony Lisi's work and reaction lately? I am just starting to read a textbook on geometric algebra. It frightens me but my friend solidspin is there to coach. He says, this is it.