On 3/22/2022 8:34 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:

If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequalityviolations can be explained locally in a scenario where eachmeasurement results in multiple local copies of the experimenter,there is no good reason to impose the restriction that a givenmeasurement which can yield one of two possible results (spin-up orspin-down) only results in two local copies, as opposed to say 4copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that measurement, and 4 copies ofBob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies of Alice that sawspin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment whereif Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they areguaranteed to see the same result, but if they choose differentpolarizer angles, they see the same result only 1/4 of the time,according to QM predictions (these probabilities would violate one ofBell's inequalities and thus be impossible to explain withone-universe local realism without superdeterminism). Then if both aresplit 8 ways as above, when they get together locally to compareresults, if it turns out that they both chose the same detector angle,the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob copies with the 4 spin-upAlice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down Bobs to the 4spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when they gettogether locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs with3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while alsomatching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-downBob with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentistexplanation of the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance ofthem getting the same result when they choose different angles.

`No matter what the angles are the splits are 50/50 if the interactions`

`are local because the photons are circularly polarized, so a linear`

`filter passes half independent of the angle.`

Brent

This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies whenthey get together to compare results will still work even if theyperform a long sequence of measurements before getting together tocompare results, I gave you a description of how thesplitting-and-matching rule would work in this case in the last fewparagraphs of my message athttps://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.htmlJesseOn Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:55 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>wrote:On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote: On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start. Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We should sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours apart so they can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment, including recording the N results while still spacelike. Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were both able to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there are 2^N copies of each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they meet. The trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N pairs in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating correlations. What has happened to all the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which have correlations violating the quantum predictions.) Bruce--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sendan email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab57cdce-1b15-bce3-9efc-a2548f3067c3%40gmail.com.