The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?  (Read 3509 times)

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #25 on: 11/10/2016 04:08:01 »
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."

In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.

And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.

« Last Edit: 11/10/2016 04:48:02 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #26 on: 23/10/2016 00:04:53 »
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."

In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.

Yes, every quantum of information acquired by the observer has a corresponding bit of complementary information outside of the observer. What I meant to refer to was that there is an assumption in contemporary physics that the act of observing an event alters the event. This interpretation requires that the effect of the observation pass backward in time and cross space to alter that event. Every event would entail reversed time and non-locality.

A simpler explanation is that the act of observation alters the state of the observer and that the state of the observer constrains what it's possible for the observer to subsequently observe.

And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.

It explains Bell's Inequality by eliminating any need for local hidden variables. As Bell shows, the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems is real.
It eliminates non-locality because the consequences of the entanglement are explained, using Schrödinger's filter, in purely local terms. The observation alters the observer so that any incompatible observations would put the observer into an "unobservable" state.

Instead of presuming QM describes allowed states for "the universe" this model allows for the simpler interpretation of precisely the same observations by presuming QM describes allowed states for the observer.

The contemporary "universe" model is a dead end and has obviously been unworkable ever since QM was shown to be correct regarding entanglement. QM has no workable (self-consistent accounting for spacetime) physical interpretation (e.g. vacuum catastrophe) and it's many decades since we should have advanced it beyond the archaic universe model.

You repeatedly claim that Many Worlds is a dead end but you present no arguments or evidence. It's not really important to me because I don't see any need for the redundancy inherent in MW. But, you're wrong if you think it doesn't satisfactorily account for observations.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #27 on: 23/10/2016 11:39:22 »
   In my very short chapter of "Quantum mechanical considerations" I calculate the time required to travel 100 miles at a speed of 10,000C. I get 53.67E-9 seconds. Thus the alternative to saying an action occurred at  a light speed greater than C is that the ruler has shrunk and the clock has slowed as per Einstein. the product being
Meters x Seconds = 0.00864 meters seconds.
   What does this mean? It is merely an illustration that the experiment has illustrated relativity not that the speed is higher than light speed but that the entanglement experiment has proven that the universe operates on the quotient of meters and seconds and the product of meters and seconds. Thus things billions of light years away are entangled with things right here according to relativity.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #28 on: 23/10/2016 19:53:31 »
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."

In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.

Yes, every quantum of information acquired by the observer has a corresponding bit of complementary information outside of the observer. What I meant to refer to was that there is an assumption in contemporary physics that the act of observing an event alters the event. This interpretation requires that the effect of the observation pass backward in time and cross space to alter that event. Every event would entail reversed time and non-locality.

A simpler explanation is that the act of observation alters the state of the observer and that the state of the observer constrains what it's possible for the observer to subsequently observe.

And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.

It explains Bell's Inequality by eliminating any need for local hidden variables. As Bell shows, the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems is real.
It eliminates non-locality because the consequences of the entanglement are explained, using Schrödinger's filter, in purely local terms. The observation alters the observer so that any incompatible observations would put the observer into an "unobservable" state.

Instead of presuming QM describes allowed states for "the universe" this model allows for the simpler interpretation of precisely the same observations by presuming QM describes allowed states for the observer.

The contemporary "universe" model is a dead end and has obviously been unworkable ever since QM was shown to be correct regarding entanglement. QM has no workable (self-consistent accounting for spacetime) physical interpretation (e.g. vacuum catastrophe) and it's many decades since we should have advanced it beyond the archaic universe model.

You repeatedly claim that Many Worlds is a dead end but you present no arguments or evidence. It's not really important to me because I don't see any need for the redundancy inherent in MW. But, you're wrong if you think it doesn't satisfactorily account for observations.

You still need a multiverse which is impossible to verify, that's why I say it is a dead end. As for my arguments, read my theory but pay more attention to the second half because my theory has changed on some specific issues over time.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0

All elementary particles are only separated by the Planck Length and the maximum speed is C. The space we observe is a projection between each particle. Thus, the speed of light as the max speed is only apparently violated... The superposed states are not in parrallel universes but they are in all other particles in our universe...
« Last Edit: 23/10/2016 20:05:49 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #29 on: 24/10/2016 21:22:17 »

Action-at-a-distance REQUIRES simultaneity. In the action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement, the observation of one particle of an entangled pair will alter, in that instant (simultaneous for all observers), the state of the other.


You mean 'spooky action' right?
Yeah, maybe it does. But 'simultaneity' is one thing to prove in a laboratory, another outside it. Think you will find it impossible. And if we assume the entanglement to be 'one entity' then there is no 'spooky action' at all. Just a question of lack of geometry, well, sort of? "They" just wasn't smart enough to realize that "they" was embedded in (the geometry of) SpaceTime, eh, sort of, again :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance?
« Reply #29 on: 24/10/2016 21:22:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums