"quantum mechanics and experience"--non separability

richardconers_at_yahoo.com
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 16 Oct 2004 17:00:02 -0700

I'm reading "Quantum mechanics and experience". It's starting to sink
in, and I hope I can use this formum to clarify some points as I go
along (I finished reading it, but I'm reading it a second time because
there's no way I get it entirely in the first round <g>.)

My big hang-up so far is understanding non-locality/non-separability
of 2 particle states. Albert doesn't explain how such a state comes
about in the first place. Can I assume that all combinations of 2
particles at a time are NOT in a non-separable state? Then what puts
them into that state? And what causes the end of non-separability
(i.e., separate reactions of the particles independent of the changes
going on in the other particle)? And what properties of the 2
particles are non-separable? (surely not all properties, i.e.,
location <g>).

Also, I don't understand why Albert makes such a big deal out of
non-locality. If two particles are in a "non-separable state" where
the color of A is opposite the color of B (A+B = 0) is the quantum
state of the two particle system, then non-locality seems to follow
logically.

In this state neither A's color nor B's color is determined, just the
state of the two particle system. So if A is then measured, A-B is
still undetermined because B has not been measured yet. When B is
finally measured, it will turn out to be "minus A or the opposite of
A", unless something is done to change the two particle system, which
meausring alone won't do, since A-B is already in a determined state.
So B, at the time of measuring of A, is still undetermined, but there
is no way (I assume) to confirm that B is undetermined without
measuring it. As soon as you measure B, it must be "minus A" per the
2 particle system state.

If the above is true, nothing in that description calls for any
"direct, physical" contact between A and B, so non-locality is
inherent in having something called a "non-separable" state. You
don't even need Bell's theorem to conclude this, do you?

I raise this question because this non-separability seems to me to be
very, very much different from incompatible properties of a one
particle system. It seems like quantum mechanics is asserting right
from the start that there are pairs of properties of a single particle
which are 100% incompatible. This seems to be inherent in the
physical makeup of the universe.

In contrast, I don't think Albert makes explicit under what
circumstances non-separability of two particle systems obtains. Is he
saying that non-separability is inherent in all two particle pairs,
just like incompatibility is inherent in pairs of properties of one
particle systems? Even so, that wouldn't mean that all 2 particle
pairs are in a non-separable state, since only specific pairs of
properties of a one particle state are incompatible, not all pairs of
properties.

So that leads me back to the question of what generates
non-separability of two particle systems--and which properties become
non-separable under those circumstances (hopefully it doesn't mean
that all properties are non-separable in that state)?

Thank you for your explanation(s)!!!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "quantum mechanics and experience"--non separability
    ... > going on in the other particle)? ... > state of the two particle system, ... > So B, at the time of measuring of A, is still undetermined, but there ... > circumstances non-separability of two particle systems obtains. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • non-separability of 2 particle systems in quantum mechanics
    ... going on in the other particle)? ... is the quantum state of the two particle system, ... So B, at the time of measuring of A, is still undetermined, but there ... I raise this question because this non-separability seems to me to be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: non-separability of 2 particle systems in quantum mechanics
    ... > going on in the other particle)? ... > state of the two particle system. ... > I raise this question because this non-separability seems to me to be ... > just like incompatibility is inherent in pairs of properties of one ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Speed limit at C a misconception?
    ... >combined angular momentum is zero, but each one has a spin of its own ... >of measuring if they have spin up or down would then have led to odds of ... >the sine of 37 degrees squared for each particle *individually*. ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin?
    ... That is, if you were measuring something about a quark, or other known particle, does the experimental value or its reciprocal diverge as technology to observe them increases in precision? ... If you combine enough particles with each other, you can get an almost arbitrarily large spin. ... color force that binds the quarks together." ...
    (sci.physics)