On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this
morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw.
Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome
notation, but I will attempt to simplify as far as is possible. I
will use '+' and '-' as spin states, rather than his 'left',
'right'.
He write the initial wave function as for the case when you and I
agree in advance to have aligned polarizers:
|psi_1> = }me, electrons,you> = |me>(|+-> - |-+>)|you>
= |me, +,-,you> - |me,-,+,you>
He says that at this point no measurements have been made, and
neither observer is split. But his fundamental mistake is already
present.
A little test for you: what is wrong with the above set of
equations from a no-collapse pov?
skipping some tedium, he then gets
|psi_3> = |me[+],+,-,you[-]> - |me[-],-,+,you[+]>
where the notation me[+] etc means I have measured '+', you[-]
means you have measured '-'.
He then claims that the QM results of perfect anticorrelation in
the case of parallel polarizers has been recovered without any non-
local interaction!
Spoiler -- in order to write the final line for |psi_1> he has
already assumed collapse, when I measure '+', you are presented
*only* with '-', so of course you get the right result -- he has
built that non-locality in from the start.
?
From the start shows that it is local.
Your failure to see the problem here is symptomatic of your complete
failure to understand EPR in the MWI.
I could say the same, but emphatic statements are not helping. My
feeling is that you interpret the singlet state above like if it
prepares Alice and Bob particles in the respective + and - states, but
that is not the case. The singlet state describe a multiverse where
Alice and Bob have all possible states, yet correlated. Then in
absence of collapse, all interactions, and results are obtained
locally, and does not need to be correlated until they spread at low
speed up their partners.
Another argument is that the linear wave description is described by a
differential equation which imposes locality, and make the non-
locality only apparent in *all* branches (assuming the singlet state
to be 100% pure). I agree it is weird that the "phase space is the
real thing", but that is where the quantum weirdness comes from. Yet,
the MWI just abandon the CFD, I don't see, in the Bell inequality
violation any reason to believe that a influence at a distance should
be called for.
Bruno
Until you can see why Price is wrong to claim locality in the above,
you will never get this right, and you will continue to repeat the
same errors time and time again.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
