On 01 Jan 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 9:54 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch <[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
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1), 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
just moves the problem from FTL signaling to FTL labeling.
It just show that in the MW, everything is local. The "label"
denomination is just a bit ridiculous, as the information spread in
the local universe, and this is a MWI differentiation/mulitiplication.
Quantum field will not make those parallel -branches disappear. Nice
article which makes well the local point (just looking at it quickly,
a first january!).
Bruno
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].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
