On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> 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* >
Collapse is not part of the formalism of QM, so "branching all the time" is what it affirms. That is the whole point of no-collapse interpretations. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
