On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >> Right. >> >> I would like Bruce to consider the case Alice measures alternately x and >> z spin axes of an electron 1000 times and interprets those measurement >> results as binary digits following a decimal point to define the real >> number to which she will set her measurement angle to (before she measures >> her entangled particle). >> >> Certainly in the no-collapse case there would be at least 2^1000 Alices >> who perform the measurement at each of the possible measurement angles that >> can be defined by 1000 binary digits. What I wonder is how many Alices >> Bruce would believe to exist in this scenario before she measures her >> entangled particle. >> >> >> How do 2^1000 copies of Alice make any difference? Each measures the >> entangled particles only once. Besides, This is not what is done. I see >> little point in making up alternative scenarios -- why not explain the >> straightforward original scenario? Imaginary copies are beside the point. >> >> If you cannot focus your attention on the original scenario, I see little >> point in your trying to do physics. >> > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" > before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the > same branch" prior to measurement. But normal QM without collapse would > say Alice and Bob are branching all the time, even before they measure > their entangled pair. >
*They're branching all the time prior to measurement, that is without collapse? Pretty fantastic. Where, how, is this affirmed by QM? AG* > So isn't it necessary to take this into consideration (that this is > implicitly the original scenario): > > There are many Alices, and many Bobs, and depending on the experimental > setup, many measurement angle choices? > > Jason > > > -- 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.
