meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2014 8:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruce,
I questioned Bruno's statement that MWI universe splitting proceeds
at the speed of light on the basis of EPR experiments which seem to
suggest that the splitting proceeds faster than the speed of light.
Could you comment on this? I was unable to understand Bruno's response.
I often find Bruno's responses opaque, to say the least. I didn't
really understand it either. But I think this might be a point of
dispute in MW circles. If you really do take the wave function to be
the only reality, then that is an intrinsically non-local object, so
splitting is instantaneous everywhere (local in configuration space!)
The trouble with splitting expanding at the speed of light seems to me
that this makes it a dynamical process, and there are no Schroedinger
dynamics for this.
Decoherence is a dynamic process and presumably spreads at SoL.
I don't think it is quite that simple. Sure, decoherence is a physical
process that is no more than SoL. But enough of the environment is
affected within a few microseconds -- before light reaches the lab
walls, for the worlds to have split. The rest of the split is then
instantaneous (think about it....)
Bruce
Brent
After all, the Bell correlations are observed at space-like
separations, suggesting an instantaneous effect.
Bruce
Richard
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2014, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:bhkellett@optusnet.__com.au
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> MWI struggles to explain the violations of Bell's
inequality.
The Many world's interpretation easily explains the
violation of Bell's inequality;
I think Bruce was saying that the MW struggles to explain the
Bell's inequality in a local way.
I disagree with Bruce, in the sense that I take QM, that is the
verifiable interference of all terms of the waves, as a strng
evidence that what is real is the configuration space (at least
in the first approximations). Then the universal wave (meaning
by this the wave describing both the physicists and the
particles observed) explains the Bell's inequality verification
in the (first person plural) diaries of the persons involved in
an Aspect-like experience on entangled qubit.
That reminds me of what Norm Levitt (sadly no longer with us) used
to say. Brent will remember this. Norm was a great fan of Bohmian
mechanics and he always said that people get all het up about
non-locality -- het up over nothing, in his opinion. Everything is
local in configuration space, so why the fuss?
Bruce
--
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/d/optout.
