On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 3:30 am, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:02:05 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> 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, >> > > *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* >
Perhaps this is semantics, but that is more part of the interpretation, because removing the postulate does not change the predictions of the theory; otherwise, we could suggest an experiment to settle the matter rather than have these debates. > -- 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.
