Talk:Nonlocality

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nonlocality was copied or moved into Quantum nonlocality with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled

No, quantum nonlocality is NOT a direct influence of one object on another, distant object. --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I copy-pasted what I thought were the relevant phrases from the old article. Clearly this sentence is open to interpretation, so I have re-added the qualifiers in the interest of neutrality. Let me know if you have a better suggestion! --Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; now it is OK with me. --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page

I have restored this to just being a DAB page. The problem with the last version was the concept 'nonlocality' seems no different from action at a distance, and in fact stated as much. If iIt’s not a separate topic, and as that article is already linked it makes sense to reformat it properly as a DAB page to make it easier to find articles related to the title. I also removed a number of entries which don’t relate to or include any content on "nonlocality".

If anyone still thinks there’s a separate article to be written there’s nothing to stop them going ahead. Once it’s written it can be added as an entry here. If it is the primary topic then this can be moved to Nonlocality (disambiguation). But the article should be written first. It will then be clearer how it relates to other topics, such as action at a distance, and how disambiguation should be handled.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlocality in superconductors (Pippard)

Someone removed the reference to nonlocality in superconductors which I inserted some time back, without giving a reason. I have put it back, including a link to a WP page which mentions this theory in case it helps with someone's problem, and would also like to make it clear that this kind of nonlocality isn't in a very obvious way included in any of the others listed so it is not redundant to include it.--Brian Josephson (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is not on 'nonlocality', nor does it say anything about it. It seems just to be one application of it. Which one is unclear as it does not go into any detail on the theory. There are many many applications of any references to nonlocality in physics: far too many to list here. That is what search is for, as well as wikilinks between articles and categories.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I've checked out the other WP articles and the Pippard kind of nonlocality doesn't fit, so there is a gap in wikipedia. Consideration of options suggests that the best of a bad job could be add a section to the Ohm's Law article referring to Chambers' nonlocal version of Ohm's Law referred to in the Pippard article (I've added a relevant reference to that article, which can be searched on Google Books to reveal some details).--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]