Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Implications of Bell's Inequalities

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...

Thaaaaank you
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:09:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Still doesn't seem to work out that well..

"Tumulka's theory introduces a new variety of nonlocality into the laws of nature " nonlocality in time. To use his theory to determine the probabilities of what happens next, one must plug in not only the world's current complete physical state but also certain facts about the past. In this way, nonlocality can coexist with special relativity."

^this theory presupposes a modified GRW model that uses the B-theory of time... this seems pretty contrived to fit the data, a bit too ad hoc.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:09:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:07:59 PM, Enji wrote:
what did i miss -.-

I'm reading it / trying to comprehend it now..
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:20:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also says,

"If temporal nonlocality is a problem, the status of special relativity is open to question"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.
3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

What made Bell"s Theorem so profound is that it isn"t referential to any particular physical theory; it demonstrated conclusively that the foundational assumptions behind all of our classical physics are violated by quantum physics. It tells us that reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of science have become conceptually inconsistent. Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations have been shown to be facts about nature itself, completely eliminating the classical idea of a deterministic nature that can be known with certainty. In the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning have been shown to be inapplicable to true reality in all of its aspects. It"s become clear that any representation of logic and science as complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been demonstrated to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

The quantum level of reality is not only beyond our experience, it is beyond our faculty of comprehension, our ability to explain natural phenomena is constrained by our limited ability to form concepts, it turns out that reality is not just more than we think it is, it is more than we can think it is.

Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown; it seems that no matter how much information we obtain through natural explanations, the mystery remains.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.
3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

What made Bell"s Theorem so profound is that it isn"t referential to any particular physical theory; it demonstrated conclusively that the foundational assumptions behind all of our classical physics are violated by quantum physics. It tells us that reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of science have become conceptually inconsistent. Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations have been shown to be facts about nature itself, completely eliminating the classical idea of a deterministic nature that can be known with certainty. In the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning have been shown to be inapplicable to true reality in all of its aspects. It"s become clear that any representation of logic and science as complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been demonstrated to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

The quantum level of reality is not only beyond our experience, it is beyond our faculty of comprehension, our ability to explain natural phenomena is constrained by our limited ability to form concepts, it turns out that reality is not just more than we think it is, it is more than we can think it is.

What do you make of the Everett interpretation then?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:09:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Still doesn't seem to work out that well..

"Tumulka's theory introduces a new variety of nonlocality into the laws of nature " nonlocality in time. To use his theory to determine the probabilities of what happens next, one must plug in not only the world's current complete physical state but also certain facts about the past. In this way, nonlocality can coexist with special relativity."

^this theory presupposes a modified GRW model that uses the B-theory of time... this seems pretty contrived to fit the data, a bit too ad hoc.

The relativistic version of the GRW model was the outcome of the study http://arxiv.org... The relativistic model reproduces the quantum probabilities which can currently be tested which I think is why it shows that non-locality can co-exist with special relativity. I was under the impression that most of science used the B theory of time.

Also says,

"If temporal nonlocality is a problem, the status of special relativity is open to question"

I'm still reading stuff about temporal nonlocality
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.

I agree that QM questions Aristotelean logic and inserts Quantum Logic (John von Newman?) but I think there are still some interpretations that would preserve such reasoning..

2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.

Yes, but I think there's always been an element of non-in situ observations. Of course the only way to resolve this is by rationalism... Take the proposal of an early inflationary era that allows for large scale isotropy, we've no way of ever knowing if this is in fact verifiable since any trace of such an early era would by definition be pushed back beyond the event horizon, right?

3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

Spooky action at a distance. Do you think absolute simultaneity ought to therefore be reconsidered?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:36:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:30:40 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:09:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Still doesn't seem to work out that well..

"Tumulka's theory introduces a new variety of nonlocality into the laws of nature " nonlocality in time. To use his theory to determine the probabilities of what happens next, one must plug in not only the world's current complete physical state but also certain facts about the past. In this way, nonlocality can coexist with special relativity."

^this theory presupposes a modified GRW model that uses the B-theory of time... this seems pretty contrived to fit the data, a bit too ad hoc.

The relativistic version of the GRW model was the outcome of the study http://arxiv.org... The relativistic model reproduces the quantum probabilities which can currently be tested which I think is why it shows that non-locality can co-exist with special relativity. I was under the impression that most of science used the B theory of time.

I highly doubt that most of science presupposes the B-theory, but even if they did, I'm guessing they're not realists but rather instrumentalists about it..

Also says,

"If temporal nonlocality is a problem, the status of special relativity is open to question"

I'm still reading stuff about temporal nonlocality
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:38:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:


What made Bell"s Theorem so profound is that it isn"t referential to any particular physical theory; it demonstrated conclusively that the foundational assumptions behind all of our classical physics are violated by quantum physics. It tells us that reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of science have become conceptually inconsistent. Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations have been shown to be facts about nature itself, completely eliminating the classical idea of a deterministic nature that can be known with certainty. In the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning have been shown to be inapplicable to true reality in all of its aspects. It"s become clear that any representation of logic and science as complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been demonstrated to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

I feel so defeated. :-(
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:45:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...

You say "shown" to be consistent, but that isn't what the article says, the theories referenced are highly speculative, none have been demonstrated, and none of them have anyting even remotely like general accepted in the physics community.

The general consensus in the physics community is that nonlocality contradicts relativity theory on the most fundamental level.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:47:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:45:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...

You say "shown" to be consistent, but that isn't what the article says, the theories referenced are highly speculative, none have been demonstrated, and none of them have anyting even remotely like general accepted in the physics community.

The general consensus in the physics community is that nonlocality contradicts relativity theory on the most fundamental level.

I've noticed as well that GRW models are just kinda weak..
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:28:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.
3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

What made Bell"s Theorem so profound is that it isn"t referential to any particular physical theory; it demonstrated conclusively that the foundational assumptions behind all of our classical physics are violated by quantum physics. It tells us that reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of science have become conceptually inconsistent. Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations have been shown to be facts about nature itself, completely eliminating the classical idea of a deterministic nature that can be known with certainty. In the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning have been shown to be inapplicable to true reality in all of its aspects. It"s become clear that any representation of logic and science as complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been demonstrated to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

The quantum level of reality is not only beyond our experience, it is beyond our faculty of comprehension, our ability to explain natural phenomena is constrained by our limited ability to form concepts, it turns out that reality is not just more than we think it is, it is more than we can think it is.

What do you make of the Everett interpretation then?

It isn't science.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:45:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...

You say "shown" to be consistent, but that isn't what the article says, the theories referenced are highly speculative, none have been demonstrated, and none of them have anyting even remotely like general accepted in the physics community.

The general consensus in the physics community is that nonlocality contradicts relativity theory on the most fundamental level.

I had thought that Tumulka did empirical tests due to the abstract of his article, but it seems that it's all math - my bad.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:58:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:48:01 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:28:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.
3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

What made Bell"s Theorem so profound is that it isn"t referential to any particular physical theory; it demonstrated conclusively that the foundational assumptions behind all of our classical physics are violated by quantum physics. It tells us that reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of science have become conceptually inconsistent. Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations have been shown to be facts about nature itself, completely eliminating the classical idea of a deterministic nature that can be known with certainty. In the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning have been shown to be inapplicable to true reality in all of its aspects. It"s become clear that any representation of logic and science as complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been demonstrated to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

The quantum level of reality is not only beyond our experience, it is beyond our faculty of comprehension, our ability to explain natural phenomena is constrained by our limited ability to form concepts, it turns out that reality is not just more than we think it is, it is more than we can think it is.

What do you make of the Everett interpretation then?

It isn't science.

Fair enough.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I suppose I should expand on my comment about Everett's Many Worlds Theory.

Science develops theories to explain reality and tests them against observations, Everett's theory confuses the tools of science with the substance of science, it takes the Shroedinger Wave Function, a descriptive formula, and takes it to be what is real, and invents realities to explain the formula. That is putting the tail on the wrong end of the dog.

I don't see how you can violate Occams Razor any worse, we have a measurement problem so we postulate an infinite number of universes, all completely undetectable, to explain the formula? At every interaction on a quantum scale, an completely new universe magically comes into being, completely violating the foundational first law of thermodynamics? We invent universes to maintain the formulas when we don't understand what collapses the wave function and we want to call that science?

I don't think so/
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:47:07 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:52:39 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 9:18:44 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:39:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:18 PM, Enji wrote:
I believe QM suggests that Bell's inequalities will be violated which would seem to suggest that that's not the case (although perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong).

Half right I think, it's namely because Bell's Inequalities are violated that QM must be non-local or that QM exemplifies "action at a distance" in an absolutely simultaneous way.

Because of relativity non-locality is preferable.

No, because of QM non-locality is preferable. Special relativity sort of flies in the face of it since nothing can travel at superluminal speeds.

Bell's theorem shows that certain aspects and empirical predictions of QM are incompatible with local realism and absolute simultaneity would pose a problem to special relativity. Quantum non-locality, however, has been shown to be consistent with special relativity so non-locality is preferable. http://www.andyross.net...

You say "shown" to be consistent, but that isn't what the article says, the theories referenced are highly speculative, none have been demonstrated, and none of them have anyting even remotely like general accepted in the physics community.

The general consensus in the physics community is that nonlocality contradicts relativity theory on the most fundamental level.

I've noticed as well that GRW models are just kinda weak..

They are, and almost nobody swallows them, this guy in the article tried to modify it to make it fit what he was trying to prove, he's just conjuring with numbers.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:06:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:34:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.

I agree that QM questions Aristotelean logic and inserts Quantum Logic (John von Newman?) but I think there are still some interpretations that would preserve such reasoning..

2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.

Yes, but I think there's always been an element of non-in situ observations. Of course the only way to resolve this is by rationalism... Take the proposal of an early inflationary era that allows for large scale isotropy, we've no way of ever knowing if this is in fact verifiable since any trace of such an early era would by definition be pushed back beyond the event horizon, right?

3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

Spooky action at a distance. Do you think absolute simultaneity ought to therefore be reconsidered?

I think we have to, the fact of quantum entanglement neccesitates it.

The case has been made that it isn't energy or matter that is traveling faster than light, but information, which doesn't necessarily violate relativity, but I think that is a semantics thing, it still raises the question of simultaneity which does in fact violate most of our foundational assumptions about physics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:34:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:23:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:02:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
It seems to me that the most reasonable position is in fact that there exists absolute simultaneity in the form of entanglement. Thoughts?

Bell"s inequalities have been violated, Alain Aspect demonstrated it conclusively in 1981 and quantum entanglement is now something that can be demonstrated with ease, it"s been demonstrated multiple times in high school science fairs. What Bell proved is that no local hidden variable theory can explain the results of quantum physics; quantum physics cannot be reconciled with the classical deterministic worldview. The theoretical implications of this are profound, what it"s telling us is at least one of three things must be true.

1) Deductive Logic is not valid " The last hundred years have brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; quantum physics has completely severed the uncritical connection between reasoning and truth. It"s been demonstrated that the 2,300 year old unexamined presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.

I agree that QM questions Aristotelean logic and inserts Quantum Logic (John von Newman?) but I think there are still some interpretations that would preserve such reasoning..

None that I can swallow, it all started some 150 years ago with the discovery, or invention, depending on you POV, of Non-Euclidean Geometries.. That sent a shoch wave through the intellectual community because it raised the question of deductive logic's application to reality. It was what Einstein siezed upon to develop the relativity theories, then quanum physics came along and absolutely changed our conceptions of logic and rationality. Godel demonstrated in 1931 that logic isn't complete, any axiomatic system, which logic and science both are, cnnot be consistent and complete without reference to a higher system in which they are embedded. It's since been proven that mathematics is not an extension of logic. The nature of mathematical objects was questioned; if they exist independently of the human mind then how do we find out about them, and if they are merely inventions of the human mind then how do we explain "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences".

Mathematically it was shown that the law of contradiction is not a valid logical law, it is only an empirical law, a double negative does not necessarily imply a positive, and it was shown that commutativity does not hold true either. These proven assertions completely change the nature of mathematics and logic, if the law of contradiction doesn't apply to reality in all cases, deductive logic can't be valid.

The foundational scientific concept of causality was even challenged, at the quantum level events occur that have no cause, randomness was introduced as a feature of reality, the basic concept of continuity was also shown to be incorrect, nature, time, and even space were shown to be discrete rather than continuous. Space, time and motion, matter, energy and force became types of relationships rather than absolute entities. We discovered that space does not have a Euclidean character that exists independently, and time is not absolute and uniform, neither space nor time is infinite. Space and time have been shown to have no independent reality apart from their connections with matter and energy - space, time, matter, and energy have been shown to be relationships that have no autonomous existence. The question becomes, "What are they relationships among?", and the consensus answer of science is "We just don"t know". At this time, the ultimate basis of reality is simply unknown.

The logical rules which we assume that reality plays by have gotten a nose thumbing from th universe, es are not THE rules. As long as science and logic stay at the level of mechanistic explanation and the particularization of the complex into some "reduced" non-reality, then what science and explains, is very limited aspect of reality, there is more to the universe than what we can grasp with out limited faculty of comprehension.

We are a part of the whole, our concept of truth is necessarily a matter of correspondence, but correspondence entails representatio, it's pretty hard to think a finite human mind can represent the fullness of the reality that we are a part of in a comprehensive way. I find in hard to comprehend why we think we should be able to comprehend it all.

2) The Classical idea that an objective reality exists independently of observation is not valid - The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world, between outer and inner reality, has become blurred; Quantum Physics has demonstrated that there is no independence between the observer and the observed.

Yes, but I think there's always been an element of non-in situ observations. Of course the only way to resolve this is by rationalism... Take the proposal of an early inflationary era that allows for large scale isotropy, we've no way of ever knowing if this is in fact verifiable since any trace of such an early era would by definition be pushed back beyond the event horizon, right?

3) The Universe is Nonlocal " The universe has been shown to be non-local in direct violation of our most foundational laws of physical science, this violated the very idea of discrete events separated temporally and spatially, the implication is that on some level, the entire universe is a single connected entity.

Spooky action at a distance. Do you think absolute simultaneity ought to therefore be reconsidered?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:58:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I suppose I should expand on my comment about Everett's Many Worlds Theory.

Science develops theories to explain reality and tests them against observations, Everett's theory confuses the tools of science with the substance of science, it takes the Shroedinger Wave Function, a descriptive formula, and takes it to be what is real, and invents realities to explain the formula. That is putting the tail on the wrong end of the dog.

I sort of see what your'e saying, he takes a realist spin on the numbers- but is that what you mean by "substance of science"?

I don't see how you can violate Occams Razor any worse, we have a measurement problem so we postulate an infinite number of universes, all completely undetectable, to explain the formula? At every interaction on a quantum scale, an completely new universe magically comes into being, completely violating the foundational first law of thermodynamics? We invent universes to maintain the formulas when we don't understand what collapses the wave function and we want to call that science?

I don't think so/

Spooky action at a distance. Do you think absolute simultaneity ought to therefore be reconsidered?

I think we have to, the fact of quantum entanglement neccesitates it.

The case has been made that it isn't energy or matter that is traveling faster than light, but information, which doesn't necessarily violate relativity, but I think that is a semantics thing, it still raises the question of simultaneity which does in fact violate most of our foundational assumptions about physics.

Well therein lies my qualm- is that since violating Bell's inequality doesn't require superluminal matter or energy transport, doesn't entail the possibility of superluminal signaling, DOES require superluminal causal connections ... and finally, violation of Bell's inequality can be accomplished only if there's superluminal information transmission; what then in Special Relativity explicitly prohibits superluminal information transmission? Even if we knew what that was? .. IS there such a thing as superluminal information?

It seems to me that information is just content that decreases uncertainty about something, it can be inferred by completely local observers.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to bed, we're in my swing zone and I have strong opinions about this, so I'll be back, you're talking one of my favorite subjects, I hope more come in, this could be a great thread to keep going.

Especially if our scientism crowd shows up with thier inane dogmatic assertions, I'll look forward to landing on them with both feet.

Night :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater