On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 12/31/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote:
>  On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to