> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
Yes, like David Deutsch … and Everett. If Alice and Bob share many similar singlet, each of them have the same probability of finding any spin. They are both maximally ignorant of the state of the particles, and that is translated into the fact that they are distributed on all worlds with spin in all direction (one by world of course). > 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. Yes. Bruno > > 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 >>>>> <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] >>>> <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] >>> <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] >> <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] > <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.
