Re: How

[Arising_uk]

nonlocality does not make any scence in event terms.cos its eventlessnessssszzzzz.ha ha.

Given it's eventless then it's not even describable. What do you actually mean by 'non locality'?

[jackles]

well the evidents for it is spooky action at a distance.arising i think you have knowledge of this its almost common knowledge.it means there has to be a sizeless dimention outside ordinary time space thats why its called nonlocation.it has no difinable location in ordinary terms .it has nolocation in time or space.and there for it seems to have omni present to all ordinary locations.

[James Markham]

Correct jackles, which is why physicists can find particles before they've lost them, or talk in terms of a particles wave function.

[Arising_uk]

jackles,
Are you talking about this thing called quantum entanglement? If so I barely understand it but from what I've gathered its the idea that physicists can separate a particle into two states(halves?) of some kind and no matter how far apart they take them if they change the spin(?) of one the other changes as well. The best I could make of this idea was that they must still be connected in some way and the analogy I thought of was to imagine a rod of some type, rotate it and look at one end and it spins clockwise whilst the other end spins counterclockwise, stretch this as far as you like without breaking it and if you turn it the other end will react accordingly. Personally I can only assume that these entangled particles are still connected. Of course you could assume an aether of some kind where things break the the laws of physics but so far it appears metaphysics to me.

[Ginkgo]

jackles,
Are you talking about this thing called quantum entanglement? If so I barely understand it but from what I've gathered its the idea that physicists can separate a particle into two states(halves?) of some kind and no matter how far apart they take them if they change the spin(?) of one the other changes as well. The best I could make of this idea was that they must still be connected in some way and the analogy I thought of was to imagine a rod of some type, rotate it and look at one end and it spins clockwise whilst the other end spins counterclockwise, stretch this as far as you like without breaking it and if you turn it the other end will react accordingly. Personally I can only assume that these entangled particles are still connected. Of course you could assume an aether of some kind where things break the the laws of physics but so far it appears metaphysics to me.

I think you are getting close.

Particles are not actually split in half. The classic idea is that identical pairs of particles are generated and sent off into opposite directions. As you say what one particles does while separated the other follows suit (so to speak) immediately. This of course violates the speed of light, so Einstein was having none of it.

What you are referring to is the hidden variable theory. This is the theory Einstein favoured in order to explain this phenomenon.
An analogy might be that when identical pairs are formed they share the same DNA (there is of course no DNA) but the idea is that both particles are not actually in contact in some "spooky way," it is just that when they were generated they were encoded exactly alike.

John Bell's theorem provided good evidence that in fact there are no hidden variables, so it would appear that Einstein was wrong.
If you google Bell's inequalities or Bell's theorem it will outline Bell's experiment.

[jackles]

Correct jackles, which is why physicists can find particles before they've lost them, or talk in terms of a particles wave function.

glad you see that james.nonlocality can be quite a lone place.ha ha

[Arising_uk]

Particles are not actually split in half. The classic idea is that identical pairs of particles are generated and sent off into opposite directions. ...

If the entanglement means that it is impossible to describe them as separate particles but only one quantum mechanical state then I'd say you've not got two particles.

What you are referring to is the hidden variable theory. This is the theory Einstein favoured in order to explain this phenomenon.
An analogy might be that when identical pairs are formed they share the same DNA (there is of course no DNA) but the idea is that both particles are not actually in contact in some "spooky way," it is just that when they were generated they were encoded exactly alike.

When I goggle the words quantum entanglement I find the description "is the result of two particles (e.g. photons or electrons) interacting in such a way that the pair (the position, momentum, spin, polarisation, etc. of both particles) is described by a single inseparable quantum mechanical description", as such the idea of two particles appears to be a contradiction from the point of view of QM?

John Bell's theorem provided good evidence that in fact there are no hidden variables, so it would appear that Einstein was wrong. If you google Bell's inequalities or Bell's theorem it will outline Bell's experiment.

Personally, if its metaphysics we're involved in then a planck-bit or u-bit 3-d cellular automata will suffice for the hidden variable theory and an explanation for apparent non-locality in our reality. We're a simulation running on an emulator running in a simulation or an emulation(?) running upon a hardwired simulator or an emulator(?) I tell you!!
Not that any of this makes bugger-all difference to the others parts of philosophy that we should be concerned with ever since the natural philosophers buggered off and comprehensively proved that Aristotlean metaphysics is a fairly fruitless pursuit and replacing it with physics makes little odds.

[Ginkgo]

If the entanglement means that it is impossible to describe them as separate particles but only one quantum mechanical state then I'd say you've not got two particles.

You are probably thinking of superposition rather than entanglement. Both are related.

When I goggle the words quantum entanglement I find the description "is the result of two particles (e.g. photons or electrons) interacting in such a way that the pair (the position, momentum, spin, polarisation, etc. of both particles) is described by a single inseparable quantum mechanical description", as such the idea of two particles appears to be a contradiction from the point of view of QM?

I look at it this way:

Imagine that we have two particles generated at the same time; we will call one particle A and the other particle B. These particles exist in a superposition of two possible states. In other words, both particles are in a state of being AB until someone makes an observation. It is like Schrodinger's cat. The cat exists as a live/dead cat until someone makes an observation. When the observation is made concerning the health of the cat that indeterminacy vanishes. The cat is alive or dead.

Anyway back to entanglement .When the particles are separated by a distance they are said to be in an entangled state. If you receive one particle and I receive the other, I might decide to make an observation of my particle. If my particle is observed by me as an A, then instantaneously your particle will become a B.

[jackles]

aristotles meter physics seems to me very near spot on.one example being aristoles unmoving mover.the sizeless unmoving agent that moves all moving and there for relative sizelike things.aristotle used intuition and added logic to it for his version of nonlocality.nonlocality being either directly or indirectly responsible for the relativness in relativity.not only moving the objects but being also the relativeness between those objects being moved.aristotle got it right.

[Arising_uk]

I look at it this way:

Imagine that we have two particles generated at the same time; we will call one particle A and the other particle B. These particles exist in a superposition of two possible states. In other words, both particles are in a state of being AB until someone makes an observation. It is like Schrodinger's cat. The cat exists as a live/dead cat until someone makes an observation. When the observation is made concerning the health of the cat that indeterminacy vanishes. The cat is alive or dead. ...

I thought the point of this thought experiment was to show the logical absurdity of the idea? As in reality the cat is either alive or dead depending upon whether the isotope had decayed and the poison flask broken. For me its an exploration of the epistemological problems in what we mean by knowing rather than describing any physical reality.

[Ginkgo]

I look at it this way:

Imagine that we have two particles generated at the same time; we will call one particle A and the other particle B. These particles exist in a superposition of two possible states. In other words, both particles are in a state of being AB until someone makes an observation. It is like Schrodinger's cat. The cat exists as a live/dead cat until someone makes an observation. When the observation is made concerning the health of the cat that indeterminacy vanishes. The cat is alive or dead. ...

I thought the point of this thought experiment was to show the logical absurdity of the idea? As in reality the cat is either alive or dead depending upon whether the isotope had decayed and the poison flask broken. For me its an exploration of the epistemological problems in what we mean by knowing rather than describing any physical reality.

I probably shouldn't have thrown in the dead/live cat thought experiment. Entanglement and superposition gives way to the classical world at the macro level. I guess the cat in the box though experiment does serve to highlight the strangeness of quantum mechanics.

Entanglement is not a thought experiment, it is actually demonstrable using scientific equipment. So much so that now there is intensive work being under taken to develop a quantum computer. Apparently some prototypes have been made using the entanglement principle.

[Ginkgo]

aristotles meter physics seems to me very near spot on.one example being aristoles unmoving mover.the sizeless unmoving agent that moves all moving and there for relative sizelike things.aristotle used intuition and added logic to it for his version of nonlocality.nonlocality being either directly or indirectly responsible for the relativness in relativity.not only moving the objects but being also the relativeness between those objects being moved.aristotle got it right.

I think what you are referring to here is Aristotle's theory of causation.

[Arising_uk]

...

Entanglement is not a thought experiment, it is actually demonstrable using scientific equipment. So much so that now there is intensive work being under taken to develop a quantum computer. Apparently some prototypes have been made using the entanglement principle.

The q-bit is being researched but my take is, given as you say there are macro-level issues, that it'll prove to difficult to sustain, that and that if Bill Wooters work in reformulating QM wave functions to use only real numbers rather than complex ones does prove valid then the postualted u-bit will put a damper upon the q-bit computer. My take is that a rod-logic computer implemented in some kind of nanoscale smart matter will be the way to go.

[jackles]

nonlocality must be at the root of consciousness in all observers each observer being an unmoving mover.so movment takes place as a change of state to the unmoving sizeless root.reaching this root of the self which is nonlocal to any event is sartori or nirvana in zen buddism.

[Ginkgo]

nonlocality must be at the root of consciousness in all observers each observer being an unmoving mover.so movment takes place as a change of state to the unmoving sizeless root.reaching this root of the self which is nonlocal to any event is sartori or nirvana in zen buddism.

Jackles, you may well be correct, but herein lies a problem. I would like to think that qualia is embed in the deepest levels of quantum universe and is readily accessible to our consciousness. Simply to say, "experience" exists outside of the physical world. It is important to keep in mind this is a bold statement that cannot be substantiated in any scientific way; quantum or otherwise.

Having just thrown myself in the deep end for you it is important to realize that experience is only one level of consciousness. How do we account for the other aspects of consciousness without introducing a divine being?

At a pinch I think quantum information can account for knowledge and information, but it cannot account for intelligence without introducing a divine being. This is the problem. But ,again, I don't really want to rule God out, because I would like to explore the other scientific possibilities before I give way to the default position.

There are a multitude of problems. It is all very well to say that, "something must be the case". As far as your are concerned you are trying to link quantum mechanics with a supreme being. Nothing wrong with this, but you are starting out with a quantum mechanical interpretation, which requires you to provide the said same interpretation for a supreme being. How we can do this other than saying, "it just is". I don't know, but I am sympathetic, to the problem?