On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B
measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "label" that
says something about the state of 2--we can imagine that the copy of
particle 1 carries a little clipboard on which is written down both
its own quantum state, and a quantum state it assigns to particle 2.
When that copy of 1 is measured, it not only adjusts its own state
(to an eigenstate of the measurement operator), it also adjusts the
state it has written down for 2. You seem to be assuming, in effect,
that when a copy of 1 adjusts what it has written down for the state
of 2 on its own clipboard, this must mean that copies of 2 also
instantaneously adjust what they have written down about *their* own
state. However, in a copying-with-matching scheme, there's no reason
this need be the case!
That's pretty much the many-universes model that Bruno proposes. But
it's non-local in the sense that the "matching scheme" must take
account of which measurements are compatible, i.e. it "knows" the
results even while they are spacelike separated.
Exactly, the model assumes the results it is trying to get. It is not a
local physical model because the statistics do not originate locally.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
