## Position EPR: Simplest Case of Non Locality

When a Quantum Interaction has happened, the Quantum Process (aka “Quantum Mechanics/Wave Mechanics”) occurs: a wave W spreads out. Non locality arises, because said wave W can spread out, in some circumstances to large, even cosmic distances. Let say it involves two particles, P1. P2. So we have: W = W(P1, P2).

Now W determines all the positions, momentum, energy, quantum numbers of both P1 and P2.

EPR Position-Momentum. Superluminal signal sent

If W evolves in real space, finding out P1 determines P2. Now the key is that there are complementary variables. For example determining position x pretty well makes momentum p vastly uncertain: x p > h.

But say we have x(P1) + x (P2) = 0 and p(P1) + p(P2) = 0.

Hence determining x(P1) with arbitrary accuracy makes p(P2) arbitrarily wild… even if it’s a parsec away!

Einstein and company (with hidden Popper!) had a milder version of this, and concluded Quantum Mechanics was uncertain.

I conclude Quantum Physics is SUPERLUMINAL… And why not?

PA

### 9 Responses to “Position EPR: Simplest Case of Non Locality”

1. Gmax Says:

Above my pay grade. Can you pretty please put it in a sequence or two?

Like

2. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

Like Gmax said, for me your post is probably above my pay grade. But for us retirees, that’s not difficult 🙂

Anyway, that said, you’re implying a super-luminal (faster than light) – spreading of “the wave?” I know tests of non-local phenomenon (action at a distance stuff) have shown that the “speed” is at least 10,000 times the speed of light. This, they think, is due to the limits of their measurements, and not the actual speed. The actual speed, they say, is infinite (action at a distance). This seems incomprehensible to me (too big a number, infinite doesn’t register in brain).

I have been reading about multidimensional project theories, which seem to more rationally explain (is that possible in QM?) the instant part of action at a distance. In the higher dimension, no separation = instant action. Only our projection shows space in between.

Then, there’s always the ether …

Like

• Patrice Ayme Says:

Hi Ronald!
OK, the EXISTING formalism of Quantum Mechanics asserts an INFINITE speed for the collapse, indeed. I am, however, of the opinion of Newton on this:”No man trained in philosophy could entertain the notion…” Newton was criticizing his own theory of gravitation. Laplace corrected that, making the speed unknown, yet FINITE, observing gravitational waves were generated.

There is a “philosophical” reason for FINITE QUANTUM INTERACTION… BTW, “QUANTUM INTERACTION” is MY own notion… It looks like nothing, “QUANTUM INTERACTION”, but it’s a revolution (if true).
The reason is CAUSALITY.
With instantaneous, there is no causality.

Traditional physicists will reply that we already have the finite speed of light for that. However, the speed of light is LOCAL.

My own SQPR assumes a very high speed.

I don’t believe in the infinite, and, as a mathematician, commits the ultimate sin:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/largest-number/

Like

• ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

Hi Patrice,

I may not have picked up all of the nuances in your response(s), but taken as a whole they give me some feeling about how I might refactor some pet theories related to QM. Thanks for the “Largest Number” link. I enjoyed reading it, especially your comment in the end:

“… any fundamental interaction can be viewed as an evidence of extraneous dimensions. It can be viewed nearly as a tautology. So 3D is quite a bit too simplistic. Further dimensions lay in wait whenever one …”

It seems there’s a mapping between our 3D euclidean space and the *real* space of some higher dimension(s), but alas our perceived 3D projection is limited – and is, as you say, too simplistic. Unfortunately, the simplistic view is what we’re stuck with – making it pretty darned hard to figure out what is really going on.

You made some reference to a “connection” between local physical manifestations and non-locality. Is that connection just a projection, like a hologram? I mean hologram in the sense of actualized physical matter, not a science fair trick :-).

Like

• Patrice Ayme Says:

Dear Ronald:
Many things to say about what you wrote and I appreciate you appreciated what I wrote. The “dimension” thingie has caused mental stress to lots of physicists who used it to criticize De Broglie Pilot Wave, which is arguably a better theory than QM Copenhagen sauce (see my exchanges with others here).

I am no fan of “holograms” for two reasons. One has to do with the physics which are rather trivial… The other is that it’s basically what is known as Stokes generalized theorem, something like: Sdf = sf (my notation, where f is a function, df its differential, S the integral over the volume V, and s the integral of f over the boundary of the volume V…) So it’s pure classical multidimensional mathematics… No new idea…

Like

• ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

Hi Patrice,

A lay person such as myself has a different perspective than those immersed in the discipline of mathematics. I must grab onto things I can conceptualize as a first step, rather than build up the mathematics and subsequently conceptualize reasons for the results.

Yet I know that mathematics helps to give credence to concepts, and that’s why I frequent mathematics havens such as your blog. My mathematics is limited to bit math (having been a programmer in younger, non-retired life).

For me, the idea of additional dimensions beyond our beloved three (as an explanation for instantaneous action at a distance) – is easy to embrace as being intuitive. I have an easier time thinking about multi-dimensional reasons for the quirkier parts of QM – rather than a speed limit on light that is some large multiple of C.

As to the holograms – they can (but do not necessarily) have to follow on to the multi-dimensional concepts. Yes I know about the classical nature of Stokes generalized theorem. Therefore, the holograms would have to be “quantum” holograms that require much more than Stokes to explain.

Hope you will continue to allow lay people to post Patrice!

– Ron

Like

3. ianmillerblog Says:

Patrice, you write “So we have: W = W(P1, P2)”. However, that is an assumption that locks in the requirement for non-locality. Let us say ψ(1) = Α1exp(2πiS(1)/h) and ψ(2) = Α2exp(2πiS(2)/h) and let us assume they are photons created with velocities c and -c.

How can the waves interfere? Wave superposition involves the addition of amplitudes, but no space has non-zero amplitudes of both waves, and if you accept relativity neither wave is aware of the existence of the other. You cannot prove non-locality by assuming it in the first place.

Like

• Patrice Ayme Says:

Dear Ian: Agreed 100%. That’s exactly why I put it in this striking fashion. There is no need for lots of head scratching, bell inequalities, etc. From the start, it’s obvious that W = W (P1, P2) contains the nonlocality.
And the nonlocality is in the Copenhagen Weasel Interpretation, De Broglie Naive Pilot theory… and in SQPR. SQPR gives a scifi explanation, with a real (energy carrying, that is) collapse, but neither weasel, nor naive (it’s naive to believe particles exist, in my opinion… The idea was imposed by Einstein, I call that Einstein’s Error…)

Anyway, more latter, to speak about that W = W(1,2)…I am getting ready to travel right now, to foster some more CO2, but can’t use a sailboat, because it’s on land, nor a train bcs it’s the USA… So Greta will have to study more material science to build me an economic Thorium reactor…

Like