> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:11, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous. >>>> > The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular >>>> > interpretation used, it has no operational meaning. >>>> >>>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means >>>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that >>>> faster than light. But it will still let you >>>> influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement >>>> can influence things faster than light but you need more than that to >>>> transmit information, you need a standard to measure that change against, >>>> and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it can do is change >>>> one apparently random state to >>>> another apparently random state. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an >>> explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled >>> out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work >>> either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend >>> with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden >>> variables. >> >> >> Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable theory, or >> make them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or any >> singularisation of a reality through measurement/interaction, I don’t see >> how such result would entai action at a distance. If you have references I >> am interested. > > As I have proved in detail, collapse has nothing to do with it. Bell's result > holds for many-worlds as it does for a single-world theory. The "Spooky > action at a distance" is simply what is observed —
Yes, in each worlds. But you need a unique world to say that a spooky action is the culprit. With many worlds, the violation of Bell’s inequality only result from all Alice-Bod couples having no idea of he value of their respective spin in each possible world. > the result for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, even at > space-like separations. Absolutely. > Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple an 'effect of one measurement > on the other', makes little difference. I say that there is no space-separated instantaneous influence or effect. The non-locality, or Bell’s inequality violation just do no more reflect a physical action or influence, but a lack of knowledge about the initial spins, and indeed it is the same Alice and Bob distributed on all spins in all directions. > The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal Shannon > sense of information, so there is no possibility of transmitting a message by > this "influence”. That is true too. But there is no influence at all. > In particular, there is no physical FTL transfer, and special relativity is > not violated. Indeed, no action or transfer of anything are needed to explain the apparent non locality measurable in all branches. But with one world, there is still no information transfer, but there need to be an influence at a distance. Not so in the relative state theory (at least coming from Bell’s inequality violation). 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 [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.
