On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 9:01:25 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:00:23 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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. So isn't it necessary to take this into >>> consideration (that this is implicitly the original scenario): >>> >>> >>> You seem to be trying to re-introduce the 'jellification' or 'mushiness' >>> that so worried Schrödinger. Fortunately, that worry has long since been >>> laid to rest by the advent of modern decoherence theory. In that theory, >>> splitting of the world into distinct (quasi-)classical branches occurs only >>> when the microscopic quantum phenomenon has been amplified to macroscopic >>> level, and a thermodynamically irreversible record (or many records, as >>> suggested by Zurek) has been laid down in the environment. So micro-level >>> quantum events generally do not lead to splittings into disjoint worlds, >>> and we don't need to worry about the fact that a genuine classical world >>> emerges from the quantum substrate. >>> >>> So there are no 'many Alices and Bobs' before or during the experiment >>> -- there is only one classical Alice and one classical Bob who get involved >>> in the experiment. Besides, even if, by chance, some quantum event in >>> Alice's makeup does get amplified, so that copies of Alice exist in >>> superposition, that makes no essential difference. In the normal way with >>> quantum superpositions, we simply select out one typical Alice-Bob pair and >>> work with these. So my implicit assumption of just one Alice-Bob pair is >>> completely harmless. If you want to claim that quantum jellification makes >>> a difference, then it is up to you do make the case -- which no one has >>> seriously attempted to do, for very good reason. >>> >>> There are many Alices, and many Bobs, and depending on the experimental >>> setup, many measurement angle choices? >>> >>> >>> No, there are not, and even if there were it would make no difference. >>> Alice and Bob have to measure the same entangled pair and persist as >>> identifiable individuals for long enough to record their results and later >>> compare them -- or else they would not observe any correlations at all! The >>> entangled singlet does not change its identity in its passage between Alice >>> and Bob -- it has to maintain its coherence, or else it is not en entangled >>> pair. So the Bob that measures the partner of Alice's particle is really >>> and truly the same Bob that she met for breakfast before the experiment >>> began.Your (and Bruno's) idea that somehow their identities are not fixed >>> because of quantum fluctuations is truly fatuous. >>> >> >> *Jason isn't thinking of quantum fluctuations. Rather, he's thinking of >> all possible orientations of the SG device, and extending the principle, in >> my view erroneously, that all possible results of spin, is intended to >> mean the possible results of all possible experiments which depend on >> orientation. AG * >> > > > *For example, if Joe the Plumber enters a casino and pulls once on the > one-armed bandit, the crude analogy to QM is that the wf superposition will > consist of all possible outcomes. Jason is thinking of pulling the arm on > EACH slot machine in the casino, and from this interpretation (wrongly IMO) > concludes the existence of many Alices (and Bobs). AG* >
*IOW, Jason is thinking that every relative orientation of the devices represents another Alice-Bob pair. The corollary to this discussion is that Australia, like America, is becoming another shit-hole when it comes to good manners. AG* > >> >>> 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.
