On 25-03-2022 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:55 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:On 3/24/2022 1:33 PM, smitra wrote:The account exists in the form of the unitary time evolution of the state describing the entire system. This is local. It is your assertion that unitary QM is nonlocal.It's not local. It's evolving a wave-function which is a non-local object. I get the feeling you are using "local" in some special way.Saibal insists that unitary evolution is local. Everything in QM is governed by unitary evolution. Therefore everything is local. I have pointed out one problem with this logic. That is that unitary evolution depends on the Hamiltonian, and there is no quantum rule that says the Hamiltonian must be local. The Hamiltonian is constructed to fit the dynamics of the situation. If the situation is intrinsically non-local, as for separated entangled pairs, then the Hamiltonian must be non-local, and the description is non-local.

`I explained in the other rely why this is false. The known fundamental`

`laws of physics are local.`

The other problem with Saibal's account is that it is not peculiar to many worlds. If all Hamiltonians are necessarily local, then this is true for single world models as much as for many worlds. So the local account of the violations of Bell inequalities must be available to collapse theories as much as to Many Worlds theories. It is obviously not the case that single world accounts are local. Going to many worlds cannot make the explanation local.

`It's not the case because collapse is not described by a unitary time`

`evolution based on a local Hamiltonian.`

Saibal

I can see the _possibility _of MWI being local if somehow the multiple worlds evolve thru some interaction where they overlap so that their weights or numbers are adjust. But I don't see that this interaction is in the Schroedinger equation. It seems even more ad-hoc than wave-function collapse.This is fanciful, since there is no possibility that an appropriate dynamical model could be devised for such a scenario. I agree that it is even more ad hoc than wave function collapse. There is no problem with wave function collapse in epistemic interpretations. The collapse just represents the advent of new knowledge. We have no trouble with the collapse of possibilities in classical physics, or in ordinary life. The problems people like Saibal see are all in their minds -- the problems with non-locality are not real. 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQc2h6kLHzUG-hDFRx-yS-1EPpqHGTBQaUwq77zriT3jg%40mail.gmail.com [1]. Links: ------ [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQc2h6kLHzUG-hDFRx-yS-1EPpqHGTBQaUwq77zriT3jg%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/17e03fb5063349e310c74d978f4318a3%40zonnet.nl.