On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which
world you're in.
If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno
has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not conserved;
he has not shown how he can do this. If it is simply that you cannot
find yourself in a world in which AM is not conserved, then that is
just an unabashed appeal to magic, since such worlds have not been
shown not to exist.
Bruce
There are two correlated copies of Alice and Bob induced by the
correlated spins, there is nothing nonlocal about that in the MWI.
There is only a non- locality problem here if you assume a collapse
interpretation of QM. In the MWI the correlation arises via an
originally local common cause.
There is no collapse assumption in anything that I have written about
this scenario. What is the local common cause in MWI? Is that a local
hidden variable? Such would work in the time-like case, but not in
general -- that is Bell's result.
But you have still not answered the fundamental question as to what
causes Bob to necessarily measure spin down when Alice joins him with a
spin-up result? What turns Bob's particle from an unpolarized to a
polarized state so that the probabilities change from 50/50 to 100% for
spin down?
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.
