On 09 Jan 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Well, read Bell.
I have.
> It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that his inequality was not
consistent with Quantum Mechanics,
with Copenhagen QM.
what he didn't know at the time was if his inequality was consistent
with reality or if Quantum Mechanics was. That question was answered
experimentally a couple of decades after Bell's theoretical work and
the winner was Quantum Mechanics;
Yes.
so now we know that at least one of the assumptions that Bell made
(realism, locality, high school math works) must be wrong.
In Bell realism bears on the unique outcome. It is realism in
Copenhagen QM. he does not address the question of locality in the non-
collapse theory (which he does not like).
> but Bell's inequality IS violated.
Experimentally,
Huh? This is a physical idea not a mathematical one, how else could
it be proven wrong other than experimentally?
Sometimes it is good to be redundant on what is important :)
> But when you look at the many branches, at once [...]
Unfortunately my eyesight isn't good enough to allow me to look at
many branches of the multiverse at once.
There is a technic: do QM. Just look at the terms in the solution of
shroedinger equation, involving yourself, perhaps with Alice and Bob,
etc.
> to me, the Bell's inequality experimental violation is a quite
strong evidence for MW, that is QM-without collapse.
To me Bell's inequality experimental violation is a quite strong
evidence that reality is not local
I am the one here who will tell you that 3p non locality is only a
sound made by your lips and nothing else.
Einstein was skeptical of the collapse of the wave because it
introduce non locality, and non covariance. I think he is right. 3p
non locality is telepathy or spooky action at a distance. It does not
make sense to me.
or not realistic or not either.
MWI is not local
Proof? The violation of Bell's inequality implies non locality for a
realist interpretation of QM+collapse. When collapse never happens,
all that occur comes from local interaction and interference,
spreading at speed less than c.
so it could be correct, and emotionally it is my favorite
interpretation, but logically I must admit that it is not the only
interpretation that could be correct. Much as I dislike Copenhagen
the fact is it's non-realistic so the violation of Bell's inequality
is not rule it out. But Einstein's idea that things are realistic
and local (and deterministic too although determinism was less
important to Einstein than realism or locality) IS ruled out.
Proof?
Quantum indeterminacy and quantum non locality are pure first person
plural "illusion" (subjective, first person) in Everett.
3p determinism was as much important than 3p locality for Einstein.
"God does not play dice". He will keep that idea all his life. This is
well known.
There is few doubt, for me, that, like most cosmologist, he would have
preferred many worlds than anything non deterministic or non local. I
think (even more so after the reading of Jammer's book on Einstein's
religion).
Bruno
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 [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.
