3 ms·

I have no idea if this makes sense, as it is mostly random typing from a monkey (who has been drinking beer, no less)... but couldn't it be perfectly reasonable

I have no idea if this makes sense, as it is mostly random typing from a monkey (who has been drinking beer, no less)... but couldn't it be perfectly reasonable if non-locality was the result of something that is non-observable? I mean, if I flip a coin and heads comes up, it's not surprising that tails is down. The head is connected to the tail, so I can't have both coming up at the same time. Imagine that there are inhabitants of a torus world with the coin at one point. It's spinning there. Alice stays to watch the spinning coin and Bob wanders along the torus in the opposite direction. Eventually he sees a spinning coin too. It can't be the same coin, because he's walked a long way in the opposite direction. So he watches the coin. Eventually it stops spinning. Alice sees heads and Bob sees tails. No matter how often they do this, it works out opposite. It's not that one side of the coin is communicating to the other side of the coin at the other "end" of the torus. It's just that there is no other way for it to work out. I'm not suggesting that it actually works this way, I'm just giveng my drunken monkey interpretation of how particles could exhibit this behaviour without many worlds ;-)

Manishearth 11y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it appears that you're conjecturing that "everything is local". That doesn't square too well with relativity, though. Either that or you're talking of a hidden variable theory, which is exactly what Bell's theorem disallows.
ryandamm 11y ago
Beer is a good tool to try to understand quantum mechanics, but there's stronger stuff that might be more helpful. That said, you're articulating a version of what's called a 'hidden variable' view of QM, which is actually explicitly what Bell's inequality is meant to disprove. I'm going to write a long post at root to try to explain this more, because I think it's really important to talk in particulars when discussing QM... hopefully it helps.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I'd really appreciate that. I've been looking at Wikipedia articles and I really can't quite understand what "local hidden variable" means in relation to "non-local hidden variable". I wasn't really suggesting that the system was deterministic. The coin is neither heads nor tails until someone looks at it. I was suggesting that it is the same coin in 2 different places (from the vantage point of the people observing it). However, you can't know a priori that it is the same coin. You have to observe it in both places and communicate your discovery. Since you are trapped in your torus, it will take time communicate it. But it's not like the coin is sending messages to itself to say, "if someone looks at the other side, make sure it is tails". It just is. Similarly, it is not in a determined state at the point of entaglement. It is only determined when one party looks at it. But then that decides what the other party will see. I honestly don't see how you would create a test for this because you would not be able to determine if 2 particles were entanlged (the same coin in my silly example) without observing them. Anyway, I appreciate your patience. I am keenly aware that "crazy theories from people who have no idea what they are talking about" are not particularly helpful. But if you write a blog post on the topic, that's the kind of area I'd like to see explained better ;-)
  - ryandamm 11y ago
    So, in a nutshell, the phrase 'It is only determined when one party looks at it' is the definition of non-locality. If the two parties are separated by a significant distance, that implies that one viewer (Alice?) determines what the other viewer (Bob) sees the moment she looks at the coin. But of course, our notion of who 'looks' first is a function of relativity; there are reference frames where Bob looks first. The fact that they always correspond suggest that either A) the result was predetermined (hidden variable, i.e. local reality) or B) the two particles 'communicate' faster than light. (Note that, because the 'communication' can't actually convey information, it doesn't technically violate relativity, just, you know, that last shred of common sense you hoped applied to physics. I'd write more -- didn't get to that meta-post, because I recently turned on the 'no procrastinate' flag on HN... and though it's made me way more productive I'm not sure if it's made me happier. C'est la whatever.

Manishearth 11y ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it appears that you're conjecturing that "everything is local". That doesn't square too well with relativity, though. Either that or you're talking of a hidden variable theory, which is exactly what Bell's theorem disallows.

ryandamm 11y ago

Beer is a good tool to try to understand quantum mechanics, but there's stronger stuff that might be more helpful. That said, you're articulating a version of what's called a 'hidden variable' view of QM, which is actually explicitly what Bell's inequality is meant to disprove. I'm going to write a long post at root to try to explain this more, because I think it's really important to talk in particulars when discussing QM... hopefully it helps.

mikekchar 11y ago
I'd really appreciate that. I've been looking at Wikipedia articles and I really can't quite understand what "local hidden variable" means in relation to "non-local hidden variable". I wasn't really suggesting that the system was deterministic. The coin is neither heads nor tails until someone looks at it. I was suggesting that it is the same coin in 2 different places (from the vantage point of the people observing it). However, you can't know a priori that it is the same coin. You have to observe it in both places and communicate your discovery. Since you are trapped in your torus, it will take time communicate it. But it's not like the coin is sending messages to itself to say, "if someone looks at the other side, make sure it is tails". It just is. Similarly, it is not in a determined state at the point of entaglement. It is only determined when one party looks at it. But then that decides what the other party will see. I honestly don't see how you would create a test for this because you would not be able to determine if 2 particles were entanlged (the same coin in my silly example) without observing them. Anyway, I appreciate your patience. I am keenly aware that "crazy theories from people who have no idea what they are talking about" are not particularly helpful. But if you write a blog post on the topic, that's the kind of area I'd like to see explained better ;-)
- ryandamm 11y ago
  So, in a nutshell, the phrase 'It is only determined when one party looks at it' is the definition of non-locality. If the two parties are separated by a significant distance, that implies that one viewer (Alice?) determines what the other viewer (Bob) sees the moment she looks at the coin. But of course, our notion of who 'looks' first is a function of relativity; there are reference frames where Bob looks first. The fact that they always correspond suggest that either A) the result was predetermined (hidden variable, i.e. local reality) or B) the two particles 'communicate' faster than light. (Note that, because the 'communication' can't actually convey information, it doesn't technically violate relativity, just, you know, that last shred of common sense you hoped applied to physics. I'd write more -- didn't get to that meta-post, because I recently turned on the 'no procrastinate' flag on HN... and though it's made me way more productive I'm not sure if it's made me happier. C'est la whatever.