> On 16 Apr 2018, at 05:33, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Bruce Kellett < >>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> >>>> If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to show >>>> the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact. >>> >>> The fact is demonstrated by the experiments that test Bell inequalities on >>> the singlet state. >> >> >> Not at all. This proves the existence of influence at a distance when we >> suppose that a measurement gives an outcome, but in QM without collapse, a >> measurement gives all outcomes, with varying relative probabilities. > > The measurement on one of the spin-half particles in the singlet state has > only two possible outcomes. As is often said in discussions of non-locality > in Everettian QM, 'measurements that are not made do not have outcomes!’
Contextually yes. Because Alice and Bob, in most experience, have a common protocol, in most thought experience, but we need to take into account at the start all Alice and Bob to see that there will be non influence at distance, but only sharable self-localisation issues. > >>>> You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it involves >>>> 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See more in the >>>> archive. >>> >>> The singlet state involves only four possible combinations of experimental >>> results >> >> We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet state >> (in classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of combinations >> of experimental result. > > This is false. Even in Everettian QM there are only two possible outcomes for > each spin measurement: this leads to two distinct worlds for each particle of > the pair. Hence only 4 possible parallel universes. Where do you get the idea > that there are infinitely many parallel universes? This is not part of > Everettian QM, or any other model of QM. >From Deutsch and many others, but you can deduce it from Everett long text. >Just take the universal wave seriously. > But even if you can manufacture an infinity of universes, you still have not > shown how this removes the non-locality inherent in the quantum formalism. You have not shown non locality. In the Everett, the locality is preserved by the fact that you need interaction/measurement at some point, and the superstition get “contagious” only at the speed of light, something zurek explained well in his account of decoherence. Locality is also trivial if you look at each time to the entire multiverse phase space structure. I don’t see how you perceive any influences at a distance. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
