> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> If they are space separated, I am not sure I can make sense of being in >>>> the same branch. >>> >>> You appear to be referring to the presence of quantum fluctuations >>> continually splitting the classical Alice and Bob into multiple copies -- >>> the point that Jason has made. >> >> That points is correct, but I was alluding to the infinity of Bob and Alice >> couples associated with the singlet state. That is needed to tackle the case >> where Alice and Bob makes non orthogonal measurements. > > I was trying to make sense of the suggestion of many Alices and Bobs before > any measurement. That can easily be implemented by having Alice select her > measurement angle according to the time of some radioactive decay. Since an > infinity of decay times is possible, we get a superposition of an infinite > number of copies of Alice.
OK. But we have this in our context too. > But this makes not difference to the basic argument -- one just picks out a > typical Alice. How? > You are wrong when you claim that an infinity of couples are required to make > sense of measurements made at arbitrary angles. Why? > The singlet state is rotationally symmetric, That’s why. > and can be expressed in any base. But this does not mean that there actually > exists a copy of the observer for each of the potential bases. That idea > makes no sense at all; it is not part of quantum mechanics in any possible > formulation. ? That would contradict the complementary principle. A well localised particle is a particle having almost all possible momenta in many different histories. > >> The singlet state does not single out one base, despite the notation. It >> describes an infinite of Alice and Bob right at the start. > > Sure, the singlet state does not single out one base. But that does not mean > that it describes an infinity of observers. Just because you can measure at > any angle does not mean that there is actually an infinity of observers > making all those possible measurements. That notion is just crazy. ? It is just what the wave described literally. 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.
