From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that
were not made in order to show that Bell assumed counterfactual
definiteness, but his attempts to reconstruct Bell's arguments in
this way were so contrived as to be laughable -- Bell's result does
not depend on the assumption of counterfactual definiteness.
You have not et convince me.
Why does Baylock introduce unnecessary references to experiments that
were not performed?
To have, or not, a notion of counterfactual definiteness.
If you can think of any reason other than a silly attempt to deflect
Bell's theorem, then tell me.
Would you have a link to Baylock? Maybe you gave one in your paper?
I gave comprehensive references in the notes I posted to the list.
In this discussion we should perhaps distinguish:
1) FTL-with-tranfer-of-information (we all agree, I think, that this
does not exist, even with QM+collapse)
Yes, the no-signalling theorems rule this out.
2) FTL-without-tranfer-of-information. (This has to exist with
QM+collapse+the wave-is-physically-real)
I have no reason to suppose that the wave function is physically real.
3) No FTL-at-all (this is realised, I think, by any sensible
interpretation of QM-without collapse).
Interaction with the entangled state instantaneously destroys the
symmetry. No need for physical FTL.
Do you have the book by Susskind & Friedman “Quantum Mechanics, the
theoretical minimum”. A lovely book.
Last year I gave as exercise for some of my students to criticise its
sections 7.9/10/11 “Entanglement and Locality, ...”. Susskind and
Friedamn shows correctly that if you want to simulate Bell’s
inequality violation with two computers (one for Alice and one for
Bob), That requires necessarily an “instantaneous cable” between the
two computers.
I do not have this book. But this argument was also given in the paper
by Brunner et al. (also referenced in my paper).
The proof is correct, only by assuming (as they do implicitly in the
whole book) a unique universe. What they show (implicitly) is that if
wa want simulate QM with a computer, the only way to get the violation
of Bell’s inequality requires to simulate the observers too, and apply
QM to them too. But they do not even mention tat possibility,
For this to work you would have to simulate a non-local connection as well.
and indeed Everett is not mentioned in the index, and the MW is to
even suggested nowhere in the book (which is still a very good
introduction to QM, a good companion to Albert’s book, for the
beginners).
I have other reasons for not liking Susskind's approach to things. But I
have heard that this book is a good introduction to QM.
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 [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.
