On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if what >>> you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong. >>> >> >> > Explain why the following table shows that MWI is local, and realistic >> on the wave function and universal wave function: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations >> > > I have no idea where Wikipedia got that table but it is self > contradictory. It says the observer plays no part in many worlds > I would add a (*) on "observer role". In MWI the observer plays no special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the case for many interpretations where the observer plays some special privileged role, such as having the ability to collapse wave functions. > but it also says "no" to counterfactual definiteness meaning you can't > speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that > have not been observed. > That is true for MWI because measurements don't have (single) definite results. > Both those things can't be right. > Can you explain why not? > And in many world there is no unique future but it says there is no unique > past, and that's not what the theory says. > There is no unique past as shown in the quantum erasure experiment. > > >>that's not what physicists mean when they use the word "realistic", >>> they mean that a wave or a particle possesses one specific attribute even >>> if it has not been measured. >>> >> >> > That is hidden variable. >> > > That is realism. Hidden variables are about how something is going to > change, realism is about how something is right now. > The wave function says everything there is to be said about how something is right now. The MWI says this wave function is real. > > > There cannot be a single hidden value but there can be multiple real >> values. >> > > I don't know what you mean by that. The best way to think of hidden > variables is as a lookup table that photons and electrons can see but for > some reason we can not. The table can contain as many real values as you > like, it can even contain an infinite number of values; but no lookup > table, no set of hidden variables, can explain the results we see from > experiment. > It can. If a particle has multiple values (spin up and spin down) and those values correspond to another far away particle, which also has two values (spin down and spin up), and if when someone measures that particle, they too become correlated with the dual states of the particle, this explains the Bell inequalities. It is only when one presumes a measurement can have only a single definite value that you need FTL influences to explain the Bell inequalities. The assumption that measurements could only have one outcome was "so obvious" Bell (and many others) didn't even realize they had made this assumption. > > > >>For example, if a photon already has one specific polarization even >>> before its quantum entangled twin has been measured then it is realistic. >>> >> >> > It has many specific polarizations before it is measured. >> > > Then it is observer dependent, and the crown jewel of the MWI is that it's > observer independent and solves the measurement problem. > It does, and MWI perfectly explains how measurement works. The multiple values are not created or set by the measurement. Consider a photon that has passed through a half-silvered mirror, such that it has two velocities and two positions. This photon's position and momentum have two values. Now imagine in only one of the directions the photon is traversing, it is heading straight toward an electron. Now when this photon (with its two directions) interacts with the electron, it both hits and misses the electron. The electron that is hit is correlated with the photon that traveled the path toward it, and it is missed which is correlated with the photon that took the alternate path. Thus, the "multi-positioned" photon, upon interacting and not interacting with this electron, has put the electron into two states (of being deflected and not being deflected), and the correlations are explained. Now imagine the deflected photon hits a TV screen causing it to flash. The electron which is deflected and not deflected, may interact and not interact with the screen, and photons emitted from the screen and not emitted from the screen may cause an observer to see and not see the flash. Now all the positions of all the particles in the person's brain are in different positions, because they remember seeing a flash in one "branch", and remember seeing no flash in the other. These correlations and multiplications of states spread from particle to particle, whether or not the particle is a free electron or a light-sensing rod in a conscious observer's retina. > The MWI may have other difficulties but at least it solves the measurement > problem, without that WMI has no advantage and you might as well stick with > the Copenhagen muddle. > > > See the answer to Question 12: >> http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html >> > > It says "the splitting is a local process, transmitted causally at light > or sub-light speeds", so the question is, transmitted THROUGH WHAT at light > or sub-light speeds? I don't know but it certainly isn't through local > space. > Transmitted through the background space these "multi-valued" particles exist in. > > >>> >>> It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to. >>>> >>> >>> >> It most certainly does! If a event is not even in our past or future >>> spacetime lightcone then it is not local, and no event in another universe >>> is within our lightcone. >>> >> >> > By this definition, the existence of light cones or things outside >> would make special relativity non-local, >> > > No it does not because non-local events, that is to say things outside > our past or future lightcone may exist but they have no effect on what we > see here and now nor can anything that happens here effect anything there. > > > A theory is only non-local if something outside your past light cone >> could affect you, or if you could affect things outside your future light >> cone. >> > > Exactly. > So when, in the context of MWI, does this ever happen? Jason > > >> > This is not the case in special relativity, >> > > Exactly. So how is it non-local? > > John K Clark > > > > > > -- > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.