2 ms·
I agree, but that doesn't rule out non-local interactions in general
by bowsamic 3y ago
I agree, but that doesn't rule out non-local interactions in general
- kgwgk 3y agoDepends on the definition of “interaction”.
- bowsamic 3y agoTwo systems affecting each other
- kgwgk 3y agoThen the non-locality of entanglement doesn’t get you that because it concerns a single system.
- bowsamic 3y agoEven so, we still call it interaction. And it still raises questions about quantum gravity.
- kgwgk 3y agoSo much for your own definition of “interaction”…
- bowsamic 3y agoWhy are you being rude to me?
- kgwgk 3y agoThat was not my intention. If there is a non-rude way of conveying the message “when I said that it depends on the definition of interaction you gave me one and then you told me to ignore it” please assume that I had written that instead.
- anotheraccount9 3y agoI see what you did there
- marginalia_nu 3y agoIt doesn't rule out non-local interactions as in general we can rule out local non-hidden variables but not global ones. What these party-pooper theorems do is largely rule out being able to differentiate non-local interactions from local interactions... which doesn't mean they don't exist, but if they do, there's large pieces of the puzzle missing before we can show they do.