On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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.
It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices
and Bobs in the multiverse.
Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly. Aren't you
assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and
Bobs /*before*/ this experiment; */not/* just the few cases that arise
from the different experimental results. In this plethora of universes
there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along
27.5deg. That's how you get statistics...from this ensemble.
Brent
QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation
of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous
causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable
theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the
first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural
aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense
of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories,
not involving the role of the person in the picture.
Assuming that Alice and Bob measure along the same direction is a
special case.
Sure.
Bruno
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]
<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.
