Einstein and "spooky actions"

[Curious George]

Does that make more sense? If not, then I can recommend books or try to explain better or both.

Alright, I think I got it. When you are saying classical logic you are specifically referring to bivalence, distribution and perhaps the excluded middle.

Even if I re-frame any analysis to not technically violate these principles, doing so necessarily takes away the availability of these principles. Consequently, a multi-variable logic emerges which when we expand the variables infinitely such as in hilbert space we are no longer using classical logic because the principles are no longer applicable.

Is that right??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Books would be helpful.

Ok. On probability or quantum physics or both?

but this last portion of your statement seems to imply that we cannot treat the events as mutually exclusive. So, why would we consider using the P(x)=P(a)+P(b) approach.

We don't. Also, that was a simplification (I conflated the mutually exclusive paths with the outcomes), and apparently a very poor one.

And, I might be completely off base but if you are dealing with a mutually exclusive event- the probability that the event will occur is that of the parts added together which = 1.

We're dealing with two mutually exclusive ways to get the same event. I can hit spot x by going through slit A, or hit it by going through slit B, but I can't hit it by going through both.

I just found it a little confusing to toss in "point X" since we were talking about the probability of x, P(x). In the double slit experiment the point at which the "particle" goes is synonymous with the path traveled, since that is how we "see" the particle in the first place.

We only see where the particle landed. It can land at a point by going through either slit, but not both (classicaly). The probability of x, P(x) means given a particular distribution, how likely am I to hit x? But we're not just dealing with x,P(x). Because we have two slits. To hit point x on the detector screen, we have both x, A(x) and x,B(x). We have two distributions and are interested in the overlap.

But again, I might be getting confused. Perhaps just the books, then?

Actually you probably just need a drawing and someone less tired and inebriated. The member whom I started this thread for mentioned Susskind and linked to a paper, but has also watched many of Susskind's lectures (which I had intended to use to try to actually find common ground but apparently that won't help). At any rate, if you skip to about 20 minutes into this clip:
[youtube]2h1E3YJMKfA[/youtube]
you'll get an explanation with drawings that I can't provide. And I'll get back to you on the books.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Alright, I think I got it. When you are saying classical logic you are specifically referring to bivalence, distribution and perhaps the excluded middle.

I don't like the term classical logic and it's not usually used. Or rather, I don't often come across the focus on classical logic vs. quantum logic in the way the member to whom I was responding to explained Bell's inequalities and Aspect's experiment. I was using those terms because the member was.

It's true that there is a fundamentally different logic to QM, but "classical logic" is just logic, and framing the difference between classical physics and quantum physics as a logical one misses some vital differences. For one thing, it isn't just a contrast between quantum logic and classical logic, but between the logic behind quantum physics as a science and the way every other science works. The reason amplitudes are used to calculate probabilities, the way states of a physical system are described without a correspondence to that physical system, etc., are all rather fundamentally changes in how physics and the sciences work.

But the "excluded middle" is important, in that the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics has a lot to do describing a physical system as having more than one state. The double-slit experiment is one example of this in that the probabilities of the elctron hitting a point should be obtained simply by adding the probability that it will hit that point going through one slit to the probability that it will the other.

Even if I re-frame any analysis to not technically violate these principles, doing so necessarily takes away the availability of these principles. Consequently, a multi-variable logic emerges which when we expand the variables infinitely such as in hilbert space we are no longer using classical logic because the principles are no longer applicable.

Is that right??

Not exactly. For one thing, many-valued logics don't have the same structure as Hilbert space. It's really not all that helpful to think of it in terms of just logic. It's more about the variables that are used to characterize the state of a system in classical physics, vs. the way this is done in QM.

 

[zaybu]

I addressed your post and the idea that Bell was using "classical logic". But apparently that was a waste as you already just proved yourself wrong:

From your link:
"Later, Alan Aspect proved the result for entangled photons rather than electrons. The measurements made on the photons were sufficiently simultaneous so that no light signal (information) could travel between them, hence completely eliminating any chance that the result was due to anything other than entanglement."

This is nonlocality.

Anyone who understand the math in Susskind lecture will know that it supports my position. He says it very cllearly:

"Bell's theorem is a result from set theory." BTW, that's classical logic

"In classical terms, it is unremarkable but we shall show that it does not hold for the singlet state - the simplest quantum system that exhibits entanglement." He does it in the second part of that lecture, using quantum logic.

"It shouldn't be too surprising, since states in quantum theory are complex vectors, rather than elements of sets." Note the difference qith quantum logic - vectors are used instead of set theory.


The violation of Bell's theorem is a very simple way to see that there is no underlying classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. "

That's exatly the claim I have made in this thread and the other one. No need to invoke non-locality.

QED

Nonlocality is a bogus claim perpetrated by a bunch of misguided people.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"It shouldn't be too surprising, since states in quantum theory are complex vectors, rather than elements of sets. The violation of Bell's theorem is a very simple way to see that there is no underlying classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. "

That's exatly the claim I have made in this thread and the other one.

QED

Nonlocality is a bogus claim perpetrated by a bunch of misguided people.

But the claim you quoted does not contradict nonlocality, since it is not "a classical interpretation of quantum mechanics". A classical interpretation of quantum mechanics would favor locality.

 

[zaybu]

But the claim you quoted does not contradict nonlocality, since it is not "a classical interpretation of quantum mechanics". A classical interpretation of quantum mechanics would favor locality.

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist: like disprove leprechauns exist. But the Susskind paper clearly shows that violations of Bell's theorem can be explained by using quantum logic, while Bell's theorem assumes classical logic. There is no need to invoke non-locality. In the first part of the paper, he uses Venn's diagram to get the same results as Bell, the famous inequality. And in the second part he uses quantum logic, to show that the most simplest quantum system, the singlet, will violate that inequality. There is absolutely no reference to the use of non-locality in his calculation. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

This reminds me of those religious nutjobs who predict the end of the world. When the fatal date passes, and no end of the world took place, instead of abandoning their belief, their "faith" is even stronger.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist: like disprove leprechauns exist.

Okay but experiments exist. Experiments find if you measure something over here, it affects measurements way over there, even when the measurements are done simultaneously. This result is, on the face of it, nonlocal. Just by definition. You have to do work to show that appearances are deceptive and it's actually local (for example, if the observed correlations obeyed Bell's theorem, or if they only showed up when the measurements were performed with enough time delay to allow signals to propagate).

But the Susskind paper ...

It's not a paper, it's lecture notes. I don't understand why you keep calling it a paper.

...clearly shows that violations of Bell's theorem can be explained by using quantum logic, while Bell's theorem assumes classical logic.

Yep. See my post #80 for a response. In short: Bell's theorem implies locality. Violations of Bell's theorem imply nonlocality. You realize this, right?

 

[zaybu]

In short: Bell's theorem implies locality. Violations of Bell's theorem imply nonlocality. You realize this, right?

Only if you believe that classical logic applies to a quantum system. If you apply quantum logic, that is, use vectors in a Hilbert space instead of set theory, you get a theory that describes what we observe. Is there a line in Susskind lecture where he says, "by the principle of non-locality, we can use this result"? No. What some people can't get over is that there are two assumptions in Bell's theorem: 1) (Classical) logic, 2) local hidden parameters. The devoted misguided fans only consider 2) when looking at violations of that theorem. But the reality is that 1) is wrong, and therefore an explanation for 2) is just pure speculation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Anyone who understand the math in Susskind lecture will know that it supports my position.

Really? Let me quote Susskind for you:
"We have learned a great deal about black holes by considering the behavior of quantum fields near horizons. But ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways." p. 151
Susskind, L., & Lindesay, J. (2005). An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution. Singapore: World Scientific.


"The views of space and time that held sway during most of the 20th century were based on locality and field theory, first classical field theory and later quantum field theory...In order to reconcile the equivalence principle with the rules of quantum mechanics the rules of locality have to be massively modified" (ibid; p. 175)

He says it very cllearly:

"Bell's theorem is a result from set theory." BTW, that's classical logic

Perhaps you should define classic logic. Surely you aren't referring to aristotle, but Frege perhaps or Russell & Whitehead. Better yet, as many-valued logics, fuzzy logics, quantum logic, etc., all use set theory, perhaps you could explain why "classical logic" rules out locality if someone says "set theory".

"It shouldn't be too surprising, since states in quantum theory are complex vectors, rather than elements of sets." Note the difference qith quantum logic - vectors are used instead of set theory.

1) Bell used vectors.
2) Define classical logic. In particular, wny exclude vectors but include set theory? Where are you getting your definition of "classical" logic?

The violation of Bell's theorem is a very simple way to see that there is no underlying classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. "

Everybody agrees with this.

No need to invoke non-locality.

Unless you are a physicist. Which is why Susskind does "invoke" it.

Nonlocality is a bogus claim perpetrated by a bunch of misguided people.

They prefer to be called physicists. So if you wouldn't mind explaining why Susskind disagrees with you, and why set theory somehow means "classical logic" (even though quantum logic, like fuzzy logic and other many-valued logics are not classical logics yet use set theory) vectors magically become quantum logic, even though they've been around since Cayley.

 

[zaybu]

. So if you wouldn't mind explaining why Susskind disagrees with you,

See post 88.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3316283-post88.html

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

See post 88.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3316283-post88.html

Yes, I read that. It doesn't explain this:

Anyone who understand the math in Susskind lecture will know that it supports my position. He says it very cllearly

because as I noted Susskind is quite clear on the need for non-locality, and has said so in lectures, papers, and books, yet once again rather than address anything you link to your post, and to Susskind as if he supports your view.

Moreover, you seem to have some impression about what classical logic is that is not only wrong, but that you relate to classical physics in some nonsensical way.

You claimed anybody who understand ths math in Sussskind's lecture would understand you. Susskind believes that QFT requires nonlocality. I quoted him for you. You ignored this by going back and using Susskind as an authority once more (despite the fact that he disagrees with you). Why not explain his quotes? I provided them for you.

 

[zaybu]

Moreover, you seem to have some impression about what classical logic is that is not only wrong, but that you relate to classical physics in some nonsensical way.

Get yourself enlightened:

Quantum Logic and Probability Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Quantum logic is about vectors in a Hilbert space. Classical logic is about set theory. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Only if you believe that classical logic applies to a quantum system. If you apply quantum logic, that is, use vectors in a Hilbert space instead of set theory, you get a theory that describes what we observe. Is there a line in Susskind lecture where he says, "by the principle of non-locality, we can use this result"? No. What some people can't get over is that there are two assumptions in Bell's theorem: 1) (Classical) logic, 2) local hidden parameters. The devoted misguided fans only consider 2) when looking at violations of that theorem. But the reality is that 1) is wrong, and therefore an explanation for 2) is just pure speculation.

You already made these arguments, and I already addressed them in my post # 80. Please respond to what I said there.

 

[zaybu]

You already made these arguments, and I already addressed them in my post # 80. Please respond to what I said there.

I read that and didn't answer because you are comparing apples with oranges. Yes, in case of Newton, non-locality arises as a consequence, but in Bell's theorem, since it is based on two explicitly stated assumptions, and one of which being hidden local parameters (non-locality), and so the whole deal about this theorem is to test precisely if those two assumptions are correct or not. This is not the case with Newton.

So of course, if a researcher designs an experiment and finds that Bell's theorem is violated, what will be the first claim you'll see in that paper? That Einstein was right, that nonlocality is real, and often accompanied with spooky action at a distance. But that's totally wrong. The only claim you can make after stating that your results show that indeed Bell's theorem is violated, which is to be expected, is that it shows the first assumption is wrong, which is that classical logic fails to describe a quantum system, which is demontrable not only by experiment but also in theory, of which Susskind has demonstrated in his lecture, and NOTHING ELSE can be claimed.

If anyone wants to prove that non-locality exist, or the second assumption in Bell's theorem is wrong, then one must design an experiment that explicily shows the second and only the second assumption is wrong. Showing for the upteenth time that Bell's theorem has been violated doesn't cut it. And no doubt whoever accomplishes such a feat will be in line for the Noble. But until then, that non-locality is part of reality is just speculation.

Now you might say, as Legion has claimed, that even physicists like Susskind have called for a non-local theory. But that's just an opinion, in the same ballpark as Witten who has claimed that underneath String Theory, there is a more fundamental theory called M-theory. That was made more than 20 years ago, and people are still waiting for M-theory to come along. So just like M-theory, a non-local theory remains as, and perhaps this is not the right terminology, a conjecture.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Get yourself enlightened:

Quantum Logic and Probability Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Quantum logic is about vectors in a Hilbert space. Classical logic is about set theory. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

I know you can't help me. Because to say that "classical logic" is based on set theory, but "quantum logic" is not, is like saying quantum mechanics doesn't use math. All logics use set theory, and quantum logic is actually another way to refer to quantum sets and the operations on them, which is why we find papers in peer-reviewed journals like:
"Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory"
El Naschie, M. S. (2004). Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 19(5), 1339-1344.

or papers in volumes such as this: "A Completeness Theorem of Quantum Set Theory"
from
Engesser, K., Gabbay, D. M., & Lehmann, D. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures: quantum logic. Elsevier Science.


or statements like:

"Our approach is based on quantum logic or quantum set theory" in the paper "Quantum Reality and Measurement: A Quantum Logical Approach" (Foundations of Physics 2011, Vol. 41(3), pp. 592-607).


It's why we find things like: "The spectrum of an operator A on a Hilbert space H is the subset of C given by
σ(A):= { λ ∈ C | A - λ is not invertible"

p. 35. of Mathematical Concepts of Quantum Physics.

and even some you can access yourself: "Transfer principle in quantum set theory"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Anyone who understand the math in Susskind lecture will know that it supports my position.

Really? Let me quote Susskind for you:
"We have learned a great deal about black holes by considering the behavior of quantum fields near horizons. But ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways." p. 151
Susskind, L., & Lindesay, J. (2005). An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution. Singapore: World Scientific.


"The views of space and time that held sway during most of the 20th century were based on locality and field theory, first classical field theory and later quantum field theory...In order to reconcile the equivalence principle with the rules of quantum mechanics the rules of locality have to be massively modified" (ibid; p. 175)

because as I noted Susskind is quite clear on the need for non-locality, and has said so in lectures, papers, and books, yet once again rather than address anything you link to your post, and to Susskind as if he supports your view.

Your response? You directed me to this post:

Only if you believe that classical logic applies to a quantum system. If you apply quantum logic, that is, use vectors in a Hilbert space instead of set theory, you get a theory that describes what we observe. Is there a line in Susskind lecture where he says, "by the principle of non-locality, we can use this result"? No. What some people can't get over is that there are two assumptions in Bell's theorem: 1) (Classical) logic, 2) local hidden parameters. The devoted misguided fans only consider 2) when looking at violations of that theorem. But the reality is that 1) is wrong, and therefore an explanation for 2) is just pure speculation.

How does this explain why Susskind tells us "ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways"? The fact that the lecture notes you looked at don't have the word "non-locality" mean that when Susskind elsewhere notes that nonlocality is a "fact of nature" and even in quantum field theory any local theory will fail.


Now you have defined "quantum logic" in terms of Hilbert space, and in contrast to the classical "set theory" of quantum logic. Once again, of course, you haven't explained why you make this distinction. You dodged that issue with this:

Get yourself enlightened:

Quantum Logic and Probability Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Quantum logic is about vectors in a Hilbert space. Classical logic is about set theory. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

Now, while I appreciate the link to an online Encyclopedia (I'm not disparaging it), it doesn't explain why that link itself is riddled with references to sets. It doesn't explain why (as I noted in my last post) the many references to sets and set theory in papers, volumes, etc., on quantum logic. And not just references, but that quantum logic is quantum set theory.

First you disparaged anybody who couldn't understand that the math in lecture notes you linked to by Susskind support you. As it turns out, even in the context of quantum field theory, Susskind disagrees with you.

Then you deflect that issue with your bit on "quantum logic", with vectors and hilbert space vs. the set theory of classical logic. Only it turns out you're wrong there too and if you were able to understand (or perhaps you didn't bother to read it) your own link to quantum logic, you'd realize that the numerous references to "sets" are because quantum logic is set theory. It's different than set theory in classical logic. It's also different than set theory in various other logics (modal logics, fuzzy logics, many-valued logics, etc.). It is a particular non-classical set theory (or types, actually, as it can and has been reformulated in different ways). More technically, quantum logics deal with specific algebras that are not structurally equivalent to boolean algebra (which is classical logic).

 

[zaybu]

How does this explain why Susskind tells us "ultimately local quantum field theory fails in a number of ways"?

But since you believe that QM/QFT is proven to be non-local as you have claimed, via the violation of Bell's theorem, then why would Susskind say that qft is local? You should write to him and tell him, " But Mr. Susskind, we already have a non-local theory. It's called quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is constantly being violated. There are thousands of articles claiming that."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The only claim you can make after stating that your results show that indeed Bell's theorem is violated, which is to be expected, is that it shows the first assumption is wrong, which is that classical logic fails to describe a quantum system, which is demontrable not only by experiment but also in theory, of which Susskind has demonstrated in his lecture, and NOTHING ELSE can be claimed.

No, you're mistaken, as I said:

Experiments find if you measure something over here, it affects measurements way over there, even when the measurements are done simultaneously. This result is, on the face of it, nonlocal. Just by definition. You have to do work to show that appearances are deceptive and it's actually local (for example, if the observed correlations obeyed Bell's theorem, or if they only showed up when the measurements were performed with enough time delay to allow signals to propagate).

And furthermore:

You seem to be suggesting (incorrectly) that disproving Bell's theorem is a blow against nonlocality. In fact if Bell's theorem was not violated, then the apparently nonlocal experimental outcome might have been explained as just a misleading artifact, due to QM being an incomplete theory of what are really local interactions. You realize that the only LOCAL option from the get-go was locality + hidden variables, right? There is no locality-without-hidden-variables option, as far as I know. The two remaining contenders in light of Bell violations are (1) nonlocal + hidden variables, and (2) nonlocal and no hidden variables either (orthodox QM).

zaybu, I don't usually say this, but your posts demonstrate that you really don't know what you are talking about. You keep confusing different concepts and you don't even know what an entangled quantum state is. In other words, your understanding of the uncontroversial stuff is not even to the point where you can make a sensible argument (right or wrong) about the controversial stuff.

There's no shame in that as far as it goes. But what is really a conversation-stopper is that you refuse to be educated.

So, if anyone else other than zaybu would like to continue the conversation, I would be happy to. As for zaybu and myself, I've said my piece and I give him the last word.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But since you believe that QM/QFT is proven to be non-local as you have claimed

No, I haven't. I said that QM is. I also said:

The problem is that QFT is an attempt to combine relativity and QM. However, the former is a local theory, and the latter is not. Should we be suprised, then, when a text on QFT doesn't talk a lot about nonlocality and has, therefore, almost no reason to mention Einstein's description of phenomenon of non-relativistic mechanics? No.

via the violation of Bell's theorem, then why would Susskind say that qft is local?

Because quantum field theory is not equivalent to quantum mechanics, nor is it equivalent to special or general relativity. QFT is by definition a combination of quantum mechanics (which is non-local) and relativity (which is local). This is a central reason physicists disagree over how QM and relativity are related (how they should be combined): one is local and the other is not.

You should write to him and tell him, " But Mr. Susskind, we already have a non-local theory. It's called quantum mechanics.

I would, accept Susskind is well aware the QM is non-local, and the reason he says local QFT will ultimately fail is because it does not adequately incorporate quantum mechanics and therefore does not adequately deal with the fundamental structure/nature of the cosmos.

Bell's theorem is constantly being violated. There are thousands of articles claiming that."

Yes, and Mr Sprinkles has explained (I believe more than once), this "violation" does not mean the theorem is wrong (which is why physicists refer to violations of Bell's inequality). It means that QM is non-local. If I give you references explaining this, will you actually address them? Or will you treat them as you did with the link provided to us which you claimed demonstrated that Bell used "classical logic" and then went on to explain how "quantum logic" doesn't use set theory?

 

[zaybu]

But what is really a conversation-stopper is that you refuse to be educated.

Sorry, you're the one who refuses to be educated.

"The violation of Bell's theorem is a very simple way to see that there is no underlying classical interpretation of quantum mechanics."

Susskind in Violation of Bell’s theorem | Lecture 5 - Quantum Entanglements - Susskind Lectures - Lecture Notes

Student:''Is there anything we can say about it ( violations of Bell`s theorem)''

Susskind: ''The only thing we can say about it is a very clear demonstration that quantum mechanics cannot be the statistical theory of a system governed by classical logic. That`s the only thing you can learn from it.''

At 1:02:48

[youtube]xXBx8_19nyw[/youtube]
Lecture 6 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford) - YouTube