> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>>>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>>>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave >>>>> function all the way along. There are no unmatched Alices or Bobs. >>>> >>>> In each branch, I agree. But to get the reasoning right, and treat the >>>> case of the violation of Bell’s inequality, we need to take into account >>>> the unmatched Alice and Bob who exist “transworldly” if I can say. They >>>> belong to different branches, and can never meet again. That is important >>>> to make the FTL eventually into an illusion, still keeping the violation >>>> of the Bell’s inequality. >>> >>> It is fairly clear that you are not talking about quantum mechanics here, >>> but rather about some weird theory of your own. There is no infinity of >>> Alices and Bobs who exist before any measurement is made. >> >> Do you agree that there is an infinity of Alice in the case of aIu> + bId> >> when a^2 is irrational? I really don’t see how you interpret the singlet >> state in the non-collapse QM. > > No, I don't agree that there are any infinities of anything in the case of > irrational coefficients (or of any other coefficients, for that matter). What > on earth are you talking about?
About QM-without collapse. Or about the MW theory, or Everett relative state theory. > The Born rule gives a probability interpretation to the square of the > coefficients in the expansion the wave function. That is all that the > coefficients in the expansion are -- complex coefficients that when squared > give probabilities. You don't have to have the appropriate relative numbers > of branches to get the probabilities -- that is just naĩve branch counting, > which has long been known not to work. Besides, how do you ever get a complex > number of branches? The “number of branches”, more exactly the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. > > If you are basing your notion of a pre-exisiting infinity of Alices on such > an idea, then you are simply wrong. Actually I have extract the quantum formalism from elementary arithmetic. With mechanism: the existence of an infinity of “Alice” is a theorem. In my work I use only QM as a tool to verify if the prediction of Mechanism are realised. > No such interpretation of the wave function is even close to being correct. > Just think of probabilities as propensities rather than as relative numbers > of branches. Like Popper did, but that makes no sense. The wave does behave like a physical wave, or we would not sen the interference pattern. It seems you are again back to some implicit collapse. You have failed to tell me how you interpret the single state, or any quantum state actually. > > >>> They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not exist, and >>> have never existed. This notion seems to be important to your idea, and I >>> can assure you that you are wrong about this. >> >> How could that be possible? You suppress the infinities of Alice and Bob >> only because you know in advance what is the direction in which Alice will >> make her measurement. What if she changes her mind? > > That is not the case either. I do not suppress any infinities because no such > infinities exist. They are only in your mind because you have strange notions > about the origin of probabilities in quantum mechanics. Alice makes a > measurement along a particular axis. She can change her mind an infinite > number of times before she makes that measurement, but in the end she > makes only one measurement in one direction. That is the only direction and > measurement that exists or matters. > >>> If you think you can justify this, then I ask you to write out the full >>> quantum mechanical treatment, in Everett's relative state formulation, that >>> establishes that this infinity of pre-measurement people is a feature of >>> the actual theory, and not just a figment of your imagination. >> >> Perhaps, after the combinators. If I do that I will use the GHZ state, to >> avoid the use of probability. But in my opinion, Price computations gives >> the right hint to proceed, and in the simple case we see what happens. > > No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, > even though he doesn't seem to realize it. Let me try again. The state is > > |psi>= (|u>|d> - |d>|u>). > > Let Alice interact with particle 1 at one end: > > |Alice>|psi> = |Alice>|u>|d> - |Alice>|d>|u> > > Alice interacts only with particle 1 (locally), so |Alice>|u>|d> --> |Alice > sees u>|u>|d>, and similarly for the other component. > Now Bob interacts with a different state. He does not see |psi> as above, but > rather > > |Alice sees u>|u>|d>|Bob> - |Alice sees d>|d>}u>|Bob> > > The, if Bob measures along the same axis, he gets down for Alice's up, or up > for Alice's down. If he measures at some different angle, he gets the > appropriate rotated results. But Bob NEVER sees the original unaltered > rotationally symmetric singlet state: I have never disagreed with this. But Bob’s view is only a part of the picture. Any particular Bob cannot see the symmetry; because it is part of the symmetry. > Alice's measurement (assuming Alice measures first in some frame) collapses > the state non-locally to affect the state that Bob sees. That makes no sense to me. > Since the original state is non-separable, the fact that Alice has interacted > with it changes the whole state. No measurement makes any change in any state, except local memories. Even Bohr acknowledge this in his reply to EPR (but then get irrational). > > This is the calculation as Price and Tipler give it, and this calculation is > clearly non-local. It is non local, but does not involve any physical FTL or instantaneous action at a distance. There would be some FTL in case the collapse are real. > Going to the GHZ state will not change anything. What you have to do is show > how to re-interpret this calculation so that Bob sees the original singlet > AFTER Alice has measured her particle. I insist that the original > non-separability of the state makes any such demonstration impossible. I agree with this. > And even if it were possible, it would not reproduce the known quantum > correlations; the non-separability and the above non-local reduction of the > state is an essential part of quantum mechanics. Nor with this. > >> The strange things with QM is that he phase space is real, and it is the >> place where the wave evolves purely locally. That explains already the >> locality, and the appearance of non-locality in all branches. > > That is meaningless gibberish which explains nothing. ? > > >> Then yes, I extracted something close to Everett from arithmetic alone. With >> mechanism, it becomes a zero universe theory, but is still a many-histories >> theory. An history is always an infinity of computations that I am unable to >> distinguish. > > You haven't extracted anything like the Schrödinger equation from arithmetic > alone. No, but I extract the quantum logical formalism close enough to get a Gleason type of theorem. > Don't make unjustifiable exalted claims. All that has been peer-reviewed and verified by many scientists from many filed. I got problem only with pseudo-religious dogmatic materialist. Not with any (serious) scientists. Anyway, in this thread, I have disputed *only* the point made by Clark that the violation of Bell’s inequality entails physical FTL. You seem to have defended his view, change your mind, defended him again, change your mind again, etc. My point is not against non-locality, but against non-covariance of the measurement with the SWE (or Dirac to be sure). We keep non-locality, but as a global notion involving all the “parallel worlds”. No FTL. 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 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.
