On 12/31/2013 9:54 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
1. Nonlocal influences
There are not "at least two" there are exactly two, but yes, things might
not be local.
>2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
Yes, things might not be realistic. We know that at best one of those 2
commonplace
assumptions is wrong, at worse both are.
> If you choose 2, then you don't need 1.
Yes, but locality OR realism OR both must be wrong.
>> But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not
local.
> It is local,
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
The Wikipedia reference:
Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics
Mark A. Rubin <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Rubin_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1 <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079v1>), last revised 10
May 2001 (this version, v2))
Bell's theorem depends crucially on counterfactual reasoning, and is
mistakenly
interpreted as ruling out a local explanation for the correlations which can
be
observed between the results of measurements performed on
spatially-separated quantum
systems. But in fact the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, in the
Heisenberg picture, provides an alternative local explanation for such
correlations.
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many
local
copies of experimental systems and the observers who measure their
properties.
Transformations of the Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding to the
properties of
these systems and observers, induced by measurement interactions, "label"
each copy
and provide the mechanism which, e.g., ensures that each copy of one of the
observers
in an EPRB or GHZM experiment will only interact with the "correct" copy of
the other
observer(s). The conceptual problem of nonlocality is thus replaced with a
conceptual
problem of proliferating labels, as correlated systems and observers undergo
measurement-type interactions with newly-encountered objects and
instruments; it is
suggested that this problem may be resolved by considering quantum field
theory rather
than the quantum mechanics of particles.
Comments: 18 pages, no figures. Minor changes
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Found. Phys. Lett. 14 (2001) 301-322
Report number: WW-10184
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0103079 <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079>
just moves the problem from FTL signaling to FTL labeling.
Jason
We already know MWI is realistic and ANY theory that is both realistic AND
local can
NOT be consistent with experiment. And if experiment says that's not the
way things
are then that's just not the way things are.
> You can have multiple outcomes for a measurement and realism.
No you can not because 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. There cannot be a single hidden value but there can be multiple
real values. Hidden variables are something different from realism, which is a reality
independent of measurement or observation.
Perhaps that is the only thing we are arguing over. Definitions. What you say seems
correct to me if what you call reality is things possess "single-valued hidden variables".
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.
> Locality has a specific definition in physics,
Yes.
> that things are only affected by other things (fields or particles)
in direct
proximity to each other.
Once a universe has split off it can have no effect on us whatsoever nor us
to it.
And someplace that the laws of physics forbid us from going to or seeing is
not in
our "direct proximity".
The whole universe doesn't split off, rather superpositions spread from particle to
particle at sub-light speeds.
See the answer to Question 12:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html
This is a non-answer. The wave-equation lives in Hilbert space, not spacetime. So a
single point in the Hilbert space of a pair of particles has six space coordinate variables.
Brent
> 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, but it is not. 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. This is not the case in special relativity, and it's not the case in
Everett's theory.
Jason
John K Clark
It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to.
Jason
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 [email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
