On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:02:05 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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, >
*It is. The collapse postulate states that after the measurement of some eigenvalue, the system, originally in a superposition, evolves immediately into the eigenstate of the eigenvalue which has been measured. AG * so "branching all the time" is what it affirms. > *What is branching? Indeed, that is what is NOT part of the formalism IMO. AG* > 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.
