On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:43 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows > that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible.* > *Of course I agree with Bell's theorem, if I disagreed I would in effect be saying that high school algebra was wrong. * *> You then expect at least one of two things must be true:* > *1) The universe is not realistic.* > *2)The universe is non-local.* > *It is not clear how you get to this dichotomy,* > *I don't see anything unclear about it. If 2 entangled photons can exchange information faster than light then the fact that the two seem to be able to communicate with each other that fast is no longer a mystery. And if things (and that includes "you"), can exist in more than one state then it is no longer a mystery that a "you" exists in one of those states. Please note that I did say "at least", things could be both non-local and not realistic, in fact I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that turned out to be the case. * * > but once you have it, you claim that MWI is non-realistic,..., so it > has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain > experimental results. This conclusion is flatly illogical. Accepting one > arm of the dichotomy does not mean that the other is false -- both could be > false, or both could be true.* > *No, we have experimental proof that they both cannot be true, but yes both could be false. * *> I said that realism has nothing to do with the argument over Bell > inequalities. It simply serves to point out that ordinary one-world QM is > also non-realistic in your sense. So it is not a special feature of many > worlds.* > *I never *claimed that *experimental violation of* Bell's Inequality proved that Many Worlds is true, I said that your original statement "*The many worlds idea has already been falsified because it cannot account for the observed violation of the Bell inequalities for entangled particle**s**" is DEAD WRONG." **I'm not certain that Many Worlds is correct, but I am certain it's the least bad explanation anybody has come up with, at least so far, as to why the quantum world is so weird. I'm certain of one other thing, whatever the truth turns out to be it's going to be odd, very very odd. Maybe Many Worlds is odd enough to be true, maybe not.* *> MWI could be non-local for reasons unconnected with Bell's theorem. > Arguing that Bell's theorem does not apply does not guarantee that your > theory is local. Many people have tried this argument, but it is patently > invalid. There is another objection to Sean's argument.* > *HOLD ON! Before you start talking about "another objection" explain the first one. Please explain how Hugh Everett's theory allows for the communication of information faster than the speed of light. * > *> He claims that many worlds invalidates Bell's assumption that > experiments have just one outcome. But in that whole history of physics, > that has always been true.There has never been a case in which an > experimenter has seen more than one outcome in a single experiment. Bell's > theorem applies in many worlds exactly as it applies in single world > theories. The reason is that when Alice and Bob perfore a series of > polarization measurements on entangled particles to ascertain the > correlation, all their measurements and calculations take place in a single > world. In no case do they see more than a single result for each > measurement,* > *What in the multiverse are you talking about?! If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers. * > *> f you disagree with this argument, then I invite you to provide a > counterexample by providing a local account of the correlations.* > *OK. Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction. One example of a universe that DOES exist is one universe where the photon here on Earth makes it through its polarizer but its brother photon 2 million light years away in the Andromeda galaxy does not make it through its polarizer that is also oriented in the "up" direction. You can say that the split happens instantaneously when the earthly photon encounters its polarizer, or you could say the split starts on Earth and spreads outward at a finite speed, the speed of light; it makes absolutely no difference because either way you cannot send information faster than light. * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> lft -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2bmUt2d_Kb0ibdfDFr_E4-xvqw%2B8jf5z27NddqjvhpLg%40mail.gmail.com.
