> On 14 Aug 2018, at 06:15, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not there? > >> 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. In the mind of the observers. > 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. Not at all. That is the whole point. You can simulate the wave describing he observers, and this multiply them, locally and deterministically, and they see the “no locality” (the violation of Bell’s Inequality) without any FTL influence. If not, a classical computer would not been able to simulate a quantum computer (even in non real-time), and the Church-Turing thesis would be violated. As Deutsch understood well, that does not happen. > >> 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. Are you thinking to its hologram theory? > But I have heard that this book is a good introduction to QM. It rather good, yes. A good follow-up to Albert’s book, for the beginners. I studied original quantum Mechanics in the textbook by Cohen-Tanoudji, Dieu Laloe, which has been translated in English, and which is quite excellent. Then I study d’Espagnat books and most original papers in the foundations, like EPR, Bell, Von Neumann, etc. Both in physics and logics, nothing is better than the original papers. I like very much also the selected papers by Wheeler and Zurek (Princeton 1983). I did have all photocopies already, but I prefer a book on photocopies. 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 [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.
