> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
