On 10/6/2019 4:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<javascript:>> wrote:
When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles
state, the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be
correlated. In the world where Alice finds “up", Bob will
find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob
will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking
for a local causal physical explanation for the observed facts.
Nothing else will suffice at this point.
Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not
the time to bring the correlation, and as the choice of
“Alice”’s direction of spin measurement is arbitrary, unless
you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the influence has to be
FTL. Not so in the MWI.
The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is
no non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation
formed? Just answer the question.
Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of
other MWI so-called explanations, and not one of them has
been satisfactory. These "explanations" are either hopelessly
vague, or they misunderstand what is required, or, like
Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. If
you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking,
you still have not come up with any credible explanation.
It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in Tipler’s paper,
and it is coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a
many histories approach.
And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler,
indeed, just reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If
you are so convinced that these papers give a fully local
explanation for the violation of the Bell inequalities, then
reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on what, exactly,
we are talking about.
Bruce
EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but
hasn't really changed the world.
http://settheory.net/many-worlds
The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the
deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and
admit a persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel
worlds, in each of which things would only "look as if" the collapse
happened.
*The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously
measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for
each, the probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally
there is only 10% probability that they get the same result.
So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition
(or split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with
the same weight of 1/2 each.
In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2
copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
"Evolves into" is just MWI-speak for wf collapse into separate worlds.
This doesn't solve the problem of why Alice and Bob's worlds are correlated.
Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of
Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of
90% of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10%
of Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of
Alice-tail.
But that's the problem. How do they come to have these combinations
instead of 50/50. If you suppose it's something about the wf, then it's
non-local because the wf is non-local. If you suppose it's something
that happens because of the interaction between the "worlds" then that
something was determined non-locally in the setup using correlated
particles.
Brent
Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
For her this changes essentially nothing :
When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving
from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture
(10% of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for
Alice-tail who says "Tail".
But bob's experience here is a bit different :
Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of
(10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10%
probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself
between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the
undetermined state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her,
into either Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10%
probability).
and
*Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen*
*paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that*
*preserves Einstein Locality *
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1674.pdf
And the "reverse" of many worlds (sum-over-histories):
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/rsorkin/some.papers/63.eprb.pdf
@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a94e541d-47ad-4223-a048-936b686b373e%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a94e541d-47ad-4223-a048-936b686b373e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f00f3ccc-1a7c-bca0-a4c2-adb48fb34a7b%40verizon.net.
