On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/31/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Where is the FTL? I don't recall any suggestion that the "contagion" of > entangled systems spreading themeselves in the MWI involves anything FTL. > > > Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one > point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a > mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. >
I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) > In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light > itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines > that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes > would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. > > That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of > Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or dead, > and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2. > > No, but it will travel STL! I have the feeling I'm missing the point. Please be gentle with me. -- 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.
