On 15 Aug 2015, at 22:20, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> that is why he [Einstein] would have accepted the many-
worlds with both arms, as it restablishes determinacy
But Einstein would NOT have embraced Bell's paper with both hands
because it proves that any physical theory that is consistent with
experiment and is deterministic MUST be non-realistic or non-local
or both. Hey don't blame me, I don't like it either but that's
just the way things are. I guess the universe is not required to be
congruent with human desires, and neither is the multiverse.
>> Einstein's EPR paper (which is his closest thing to
Bell's paper) came out in 1935 not 1627.
> Sorry, I meant 1927. Of course. That is, 8 years before EPR.
At the 6th Solvay Conference in 1930 Einstein described a thought
experiment to Niels Bohr (later called Einstein's Box) that he said
showed at least in theory that something could be measured with
arbitrary precision so Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle must be
wrong. Einstein thought of it so naturally it was very clever
and Bohr could notimmediately find an error in it, but the
next day after a sleepless night he found the mistake (ironically
involving Einstein’s own General Theory of Relativity). Einstein
admitted Bohr was right and his thought experiment was
worthless.
Einstein's 1935 EPR paper was yet another thought experiment, in it
Einstein assumed that Quantum Mechanics was correct and showed
that it led to a result he thought insane and so he
concluded Quantum Mechanics must be incorrect or at least
incomplete. But a funny thing happened 50 years later, because of
technological advancement the thought experiment became a real
experiment; Alain Aspect performed it and found that the
"insane" result actually happens.
> Tell me what you mean by "realism". Do you mean "independent
of us", or "one world" ?
Realism means something exists not just independent of us but
independent of consciousness or observation in general, so the MWI
is realistic. That's the one huge advantage that the MWI has over
Copenhagen, it doesn't need to explain what consciousness is or
what constitutes an observation is (Can a chimp make a
observation, or a dog or a bug or a bacteria?). Einstein was a
realist, he famously asked Bohr if he really thought the moon
ceased to exist when nobody was looking at it.
As I say the MWI is realistic, and you say the universe always
splits for deterministic reasons, if so then you'd better hope those
causes are non-local because if they aren't then the MWI can never
be consistent with experiment, which would just be another way of
saying it's WRONG.
I don't think so. EPR and BELL (and GHZ, Hardy, etc.) proves only
Non Determinacy V Non Locality V Many Worlds (called Non-Realism by
some).
The splitting differentiation is purely local, and propagate at the
interaction speed.
I can accept that this has not been formally proved, but convincing
explanations are given by Everett, Tipler, Deutsch & Hayden, Wallace,
and I am sure many other.
The non-locality that we observe with EPR-BELL-CHSH-ASPECT experiments
does not show that some action at a distance took place, it shows only
that if the wave describe ONE world (like A Bohm non-empty wave), then
the hidden parameters determining that ONE world act at a distance,
but in the relative state approach, I don't see any non-locality, nor
argument to that effect. If you have a reference. I read critics on
Deutsch and Hayden, but they were too vague for me.
I proved for myself that quantum teleportation is purely local (and I
think this has been proved by others).
Some papers are incorrect on this, because they interpret the singlet
state wrongly, by ... choosing a special base, but a singlet describes
all correlations in all bases, that is better described by a multi-
multiverse, or by a partitionned multiverse. This can help to see that
no action at a distance is needed to get the subjective (even first
person plural) appearance of non-locality for all Alice and Bobs.
We do lose some amount of contextuality, and I am currently trying to
figure how much. This only means that we should not been too much
naïve on the notion of "world" in the MW (note that comp warned us
about this in the extreme, as we have only many-dreams in arithmetic).
My favorite definition of "world" (in this quantum physical context)
is: collection of events close for interaction. I would define
similarly a Universe as close for both interaction and interference,
but then comp implies that a universe is not really plausible
(although strictly speaking it is an open question, to be sure).
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
