*CHANGE OF MIND.* Not that I made any technical mistake in my previous 
posting, but I failed to think out the conclusion properly. I was just 
stupid -- am I allowed to flame myself? In brief: splits propagating on 
light cones seems to be the correct conclusion, properly understood. Sorry 
for saying the opposite in my previous posting.

First, a clarification.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:48:25 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> "In George's description" means George knows...what?  Does he know the 
> setting of Alice's polarizer?  Does he know that she got 1 or know that she 
> got 0, on only that she got a result?  Some of these he can know without 
> being the forward light cone of Alice's measurement.

Something like the superobserver of Schroedinger's cat. He knows in advance 
the axes of the two polarisers and the times when Alice and Bob read their 
records. Not the outcomes, of course.

*My stupidity was* to say that when Alice reads the record then Bob splits 
too, without taking into account that simultaneity is relative to the 
system of reference. DUH! The time of Bob's first split is not covariant. 
However, this is not a disaster of the theory, because at first the two 
Bobs are identical for a while, until he is informed of Alice's record -- 
or otherwise affected by it, I add now. So, until the two Bobs begin to 
differ from each other, the split is a distinction without a difference. It 
functions as a technical placeholder  prepared by the theory, to 
accommodate the difference that will occur later.

*Conclusion.* As Bruce says, the split is non-local; but, since the time of 
Bob's first split depends on the frame of reference, it is a technicality 
without physical meaning. Only when the lightcone starting with Alice's 
measurement reaches Bob, then the split becomes "real", so to speak.

George K.

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 

Reply via email to