On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> 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. > Why do you say that? Do you understand that in the type of scheme I am talking about (and Mark Rubin too, I think), no "matching" between copies of measurement-outcomes at different locations takes place at any location in spacetime that doesn't lie in the future light cone of both measurements? Jesse -- 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.
