On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Indeed. But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices
of measurement angle. Assuming that Alice and Bob measure along the same
direction is a special case.
Brent
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 [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.
For more options, visit 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]
<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.
For more options, visit 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.
