On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:23 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > *What is required is a local account, invoking many worlds as >> necessary, that can explain how the correlations are built up. In the usual >> Alice/Bob setup, when Alice measures her particle, she splits into two >> branches: in one of which she sees spin_up and in the other, spin_down. >> Similarly, Bob splits on his measurement into Bob_up and Bob_down branches. >> When Alice and Bob come together, each splits again according to which >> branch of the other they meet. So there are then four branches, up-up, >> up-down, down-up, and down-down for the results of Alice and Bob >> respectively.* >> > > No! There are only two branches, if 2 electrons are entangled and Alice > measures spin up then Bob will measure spin down with certainty. The > outcome of the experiment can only be up-down or down-up, up-up and > down-down *NEVER* happens > That is what you are required to explain. The Schrodinger equation certainly allows, in fact, requires, all four branches to be present if the measurements Alice and Bob make are independent. Your task is to show why two of these branches are not present for measurements on entangled particles. Mere assertion is not sufficient. Many Worlds doesn't say everything can happen, it says everything that is > consistent with Schrödinger's Equation will happen, but up-up and down-down > are *NOT* consistent with Schrodinger. > They are, in fact. You have to show why they do not occur for entangled particles but do occur for independent particles. > In the language of Many Worlds, the world splits into the up-down and > down-up universes, there are no up-up or down-down universes. > > *> the current post comes no nearer to giving a local explanation than any >> of your previous posts.* > > > I clearly showed that a violation of Bell's Inequality is not just > physically impossible but is logically impossible IF things are both local > and realistic, and I also clearly showed that Many Worlds can still work > because although it is local it is not realistic, and *because Many > Worlds is non-realistic, and thus doesn't have a static lookup table, it > has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain > experimental results.* > That does not follow. Even if your dichotomy were true (which it is not) it does not prove that a theory which is local, but non-realistic, can explain the Bell correlations. That is the case for MWI, and you have not shown that it can provide a local explanation. Your logic is faulty. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTBZBcBU7QRvqLJm-62-zn3cyrvDSOsEDrnB0TbyGJ7hg%40mail.gmail.com.
