> On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the > >>Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away. I flip my coin 100 times and > >>record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do > >>the same thing. > > >It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, > >then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were > >created to Earth and Andromeda. It's because of this that FTL is not not > >needed under QM to explain EPR. If it worked as you said then it would > >require FTL. But you can't keep flipping the same coin. > > > I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a > communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently random > sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way to tell > that something funney is going on is when the two results are checked sinde > by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less. But if you want > exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin correlated > electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace the coin > flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet measure anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in the same branch? How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of Bob and Alice, and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they are are ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, with all the correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a fixed base to describe them). I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or Kochen-Specker theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous action at a distance. I have seen may attempt to prove this, but they always favour a branch in a way or another, forgetting the probabilities bear on different portioning of the multiverse in the big picture. It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary relative local appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. There are none, but to show this, we must take into account the fact that Alice and Bob find all correlated results in all directions. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
