> On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com > <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and the > >>angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than light, > >>probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there > >>is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number at > >>random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you > >>also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the > >>probability your electron will make it through your filter is [COS > >>(x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees different > >>from mine the value of the expression is .75, so there is a 75% > >>probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you > >>happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your > >>electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees > >>there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set > >>my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by > >>side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of > >>electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its > >>certainly weird. > > >The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs. > >polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree > >with the statistics given above. > Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a > unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done with > silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle will be > deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the magnet at) > or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and one is > found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other electron will > also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the direction I chose to > be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have picked anything from 0 > degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother electron seems to instantly know > what angle I chose to call "up" even though they are now 2 million light > years away and the brothers were last in physical contact with each other a > million years before I was born.
But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result. With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case. The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is violated, and if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to invoke any FTL. > > >However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with > >large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated > >photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance. Any > >particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any > >particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to > >instantaneous spooky actions at a distance. The large numbers of correlated > >photons have each proto-measured their counter part. Measuring one > >entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the > >branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite > >polarization angle. Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason who > >measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your > >expectations. But there is no single Jason or single measurement result, > >all of them happen. > > If I understand you correctly I pretty much agree with the above except I > think its pointless to pretend things aren't spooky. The reason I like Many > Worlds is that to my mind universes splitting is slightly less spooky than > alternative explanations for bazaar facts we find with experiments, but only > slightly. That's why I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something even > weirder is. With the many-worlds, the “splitting" propagates at the speed of the possible interaction between previously isolated system. The split is entirely local. It is not “spooky” in Einstein’s sense of “spooky” , by which he meant only that the FTL physical influence are spooky. IF Alice and Bob are space separated, I have no clue how they could find the same or opposite spin/polarization, nor even how to test this, despite I have no doubt that in their respective branch, all the Alices and her corresponding Bobs will conclude that they have the same/opposite “spin”, and if they have prepare enough singlet states, that the Bell Inequality is violated. Only if they believe in the collapse, will they conclude (correctly) that there has been FTL influence. Not so in the big wave picture, where the violation of Bell’s inequality comes only from their ignorance of which spin they have, and their consciousness is distributed on those worlds where the spin is any direction. 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 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.
