6 ms·

Wait a second. Does that mean the nonlocality was introduced in QM just because distance simply didn't occur in the model? There was no prior theory that predic

Wait a second. Does that mean the nonlocality was introduced in QM just because distance simply didn't occur in the model? There was no prior theory that predicted you could ignore distance? Later experiments then confirmed that yes, distance does indeed not matter for the wave function collapse? That's ... incredibly unlikely, right? I mean, one simply wouldn't expect a model to simplify things and then learn that the simplification reflects reality.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> one simply wouldn't expect a model to simplify things and then learn that the simplification reflects reality Isn't this a refrain in the history of science? Observations inspiring models that illuminate a deeper, truer representation of reality?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- georgeecollins 5y ago
  It's a conceptual fallacy that the underlying mechanics of a phenomena are simpler than the observed data. It's appealing to our way of thinking and aesthetics to believe that the rules that govern are simple. But it may or may not be the case.
  - throwamon 5y ago
    Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
GistNoesis 5y ago
The non-locality of QM was introduced because of the Fourier transform which is non-local. Mainly because it's the easy way to calculate by hand when you have no computer in the 1920s. [Tinfoil hat warning :] Since then it's a self-reinforcing confirmation bias to avoid the obvious locality of the real world mainly because of geopolitical reasons in the 1960s. /[Tinfoil hat warning :]
- DSingularity 5y ago
  Your second statement, what do you mean? I’m not sure I’m understanding what you wrote.
  - GistNoesis 5y ago
    Some people are flat-earther, I'm a Bell-theorem denier.
    - eigenket 5y ago
      What do you think is happening in the experiments in 2015 in Delft, Vienna and Boulder and Rosenfeld et al. from 2017 (or any other Bell test you like)?
      - wizeman 5y ago
        I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong, but I think Bell's theorem assumes there is only one outcome for each measurement. If there can be many outcomes, like the Many Worlds Interpretation suggests, then I think there is the possibility that the "spooky action at a distance" is a result of purely local interactions.
        ahelwer 5y ago
        Unfortunately you are indeed wrong. Bell's theorem works no matter the outcome of the measurement. We just see that some outcomes are more likely to occur than others. People in other universes would see different outcomes, but the overall distribution would be the same. I guess there could be some hideously improbable universe where every Bell test experiment ever performed lead to results not exceeding classical correlations, but that sure as hell isn't the universe we live in.
        wizeman 5y ago
        While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the double-slit experiment, the wave function at different places interacts with itself so as to lower the probability of a photon or electron arriving at a place where it was likelier to arrive with just one slit open. Informally speaking, that could be seen as an example of different "worlds" (i.e. different places where the photon could be observed to exist) interacting with each other locally so as to effectively lower the probability of observing the photon arriving at some place where it would be likelier to arrive had the different worlds not have interacted with each other. Taking the analogy a bit too far, this seems like if two different worlds interfere with each other so as to cancel each other out. Again, the photon/electron that was likely to arrive at some place, will not likely arrive anymore, and this is purely due to the the wave function interfering with itself. Wouldn't that mean that there is the possibility that the observed correlations in Bell's theorem could be the result of this phenomenon and not necessarily mean that there is non-local behavior? That is, couldn't the observed correlations be the result of the different worlds interfering with each other locally, e.g. when the light cones of the different measurements intersect each other, so that some worlds cancel each other out and we don't get to observe them, leading to the correlations that we do indeed observe? Bell's theorem, as far as I understand, only takes into account what we can observe, but could be falsified if there are "worlds" that we cannot observe, i.e. that are temporally created but stop existing when they cancel each other out by local interactions. Although, admittedly, I could be completely wrong because I don't understand enough of this to be sure of what I'm saying :)
dandanua 5y ago
Standard QM indeed doesn't say anything about distances. But this doesn't automatically imply that QM is non-local. QM is not a theory of everything, it's just some subset of rules that we know about the Universe. Though, it's hard to unite QM with our classical understanding of locality.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> one simply wouldn't expect a model to simplify things and then learn that the simplification reflects reality Isn't this a refrain in the history of science? Observations inspiring models that illuminate a deeper, truer representation of reality?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
georgeecollins 5y ago
It's a conceptual fallacy that the underlying mechanics of a phenomena are simpler than the observed data. It's appealing to our way of thinking and aesthetics to believe that the rules that govern are simple. But it may or may not be the case.
- throwamon 5y ago
  Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

GistNoesis 5y ago

The non-locality of QM was introduced because of the Fourier transform which is non-local. Mainly because it's the easy way to calculate by hand when you have no computer in the 1920s. [Tinfoil hat warning :] Since then it's a self-reinforcing confirmation bias to avoid the obvious locality of the real world mainly because of geopolitical reasons in the 1960s. /[Tinfoil hat warning :]

DSingularity 5y ago
Your second statement, what do you mean? I’m not sure I’m understanding what you wrote.
- GistNoesis 5y ago
  Some people are flat-earther, I'm a Bell-theorem denier.
  - eigenket 5y ago
    What do you think is happening in the experiments in 2015 in Delft, Vienna and Boulder and Rosenfeld et al. from 2017 (or any other Bell test you like)?
    - wizeman 5y ago
      I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong, but I think Bell's theorem assumes there is only one outcome for each measurement. If there can be many outcomes, like the Many Worlds Interpretation suggests, then I think there is the possibility that the "spooky action at a distance" is a result of purely local interactions.
      - ahelwer 5y ago
        Unfortunately you are indeed wrong. Bell's theorem works no matter the outcome of the measurement. We just see that some outcomes are more likely to occur than others. People in other universes would see different outcomes, but the overall distribution would be the same. I guess there could be some hideously improbable universe where every Bell test experiment ever performed lead to results not exceeding classical correlations, but that sure as hell isn't the universe we live in.
        wizeman 5y ago
        While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the double-slit experiment, the wave function at different places interacts with itself so as to lower the probability of a photon or electron arriving at a place where it was likelier to arrive with just one slit open. Informally speaking, that could be seen as an example of different "worlds" (i.e. different places where the photon could be observed to exist) interacting with each other locally so as to effectively lower the probability of observing the photon arriving at some place where it would be likelier to arrive had the different worlds not have interacted with each other. Taking the analogy a bit too far, this seems like if two different worlds interfere with each other so as to cancel each other out. Again, the photon/electron that was likely to arrive at some place, will not likely arrive anymore, and this is purely due to the the wave function interfering with itself. Wouldn't that mean that there is the possibility that the observed correlations in Bell's theorem could be the result of this phenomenon and not necessarily mean that there is non-local behavior? That is, couldn't the observed correlations be the result of the different worlds interfering with each other locally, e.g. when the light cones of the different measurements intersect each other, so that some worlds cancel each other out and we don't get to observe them, leading to the correlations that we do indeed observe? Bell's theorem, as far as I understand, only takes into account what we can observe, but could be falsified if there are "worlds" that we cannot observe, i.e. that are temporally created but stop existing when they cancel each other out by local interactions. Although, admittedly, I could be completely wrong because I don't understand enough of this to be sure of what I'm saying :)

dandanua 5y ago

Standard QM indeed doesn't say anything about distances. But this doesn't automatically imply that QM is non-local. QM is not a theory of everything, it's just some subset of rules that we know about the Universe. Though, it's hard to unite QM with our classical understanding of locality.