Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27 Apr 2016, at 06:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "label" that says something about

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Your simul

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 10:29 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B >>>

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, >> it assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statist

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/26/2016 10:29 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B measures particle 2. Any given

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, it assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does the co

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B >> measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "label" that says >> something about the state of 2--we can ima

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, it > assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does the > cos^2(theta/2) come from in your analysis? > The question I asked you was whether you

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "label" that says something about the state of 2--we can imagine that the copy of par

Re: Non-locality and MWI

Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, it assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does the cos^2(theta/2) come from in your analysis? Bruce On 27/04/2016 1:38 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "label" that says something about the state of 2--we can imagine that the copy of particle 1 carries a little clipboard on whic

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/04/2016 1:13 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> You think that "the state of the other particle" refers to the quantum >> state that would be assigned to B given only knowledge o

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 1:13 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: You think that "the state of the other particle" refers to the quantum state that would be assigned to B given only knowledge of the state of A (as wel

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You think that "the state of the other particle" refers to the quantum > state that would be assigned to B given only knowledge of the state of A > (as well as knowledge of how they were entangled originally). Actually, > that is the inte

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 26/04/2016 5:12 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: If the latter, I wonder how you can be so confident that Mark Rubin's paper at http://arxiv.org/abs

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> >> I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about >> mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw atten

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and Bob

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about > mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and > Bob do not know that they are in an impossible world until after they have > compared t

Re: Non-locality and MWI

Jesse, Rather than making a detailed response to your points -- which would take us rather too far off the track -- I will make a short argument. I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and B

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrot

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

via Everything List Data: 18/04/2016 11.20 A: Ogg: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI Jesse wrote:I don't think this is how it's supposed to work for those who argue the MWI is local like Deutsch. Rather the idea is that "splitting" into worlds is local, not global; so one expe

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: The poi

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> >> The point here is that some combinations of results are forbidden. How >> can this happen? >> > > By the appropriate matching

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 22/04/2016 5:17 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: You seem to be saying this is impossible in principle, and you're confident enough of this to dismiss the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 22/04/2016 5:17 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 22/04/2016 5:17 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: So, the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 22/04/2016 3:09 am, smitra wrote: On 21-04-2016 08:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/04/2016 3:26 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from >> an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 21 Apr 2016, at 07:26, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choic

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 21-04-2016 08:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/04/2016 3:26 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after t

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 21-04-2016 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/20/2016 10:34 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after th

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 21/04/2016 3:26 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/20/2016 10:34 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers w

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers we

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It ha

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:21 AM, smitra wrote: > ​> ​ > Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong. ​After looking up the meaning of that unfamiliar technical term I would have to agree.​ > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fapp ​ John K Clark​ -- You received

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from > an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It > has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and Bob, the statistics > that the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bo

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any d

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any definite choices at all. I think you need

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 20/04/2016 7:05 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: The loca

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> The local mathematical rule in this case, say for observer A, is that >> measurement on his own local particle with give either

Re: Non-locality and MWI

The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any definite choices at all. In some particular sector where Alice made some particul

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Spudboy100: "Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. I am wondering also if this data is accessible, in principle?" This reminds me of an old quote: "It is sufficient to destroy the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/19/2016 6:00 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. The photons may have been interacted with atoms and lost, but if QM is strictl

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 19 Apr 2016, at 13:10, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s theorems (locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability, determinism, counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still goin

Re: Non-locality and MWI

12:58 am Subject: Re: Non-locality and MWI ?? Every time you perceive something visually you've mined data from your light cone. Brent On 4/18/2016 8:29 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > This is a foolish, but related question. It is, is there a means, in > princple, to s

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 19 Apr 2016, at 02:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 19/04/2016 12:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote: Let me reduce this to simple steps: 1) MWI is an interpretation of QM only. I.e., it reproduces all the results of QM without adding any additional st

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s theorems (locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability, determinism, counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still going on ... Here is some (very short) literature J.S. Bell’s Conc

Re: Non-locality and MWI

?? Every time you perceive something visually you've mined data from your light cone. Brent On 4/18/2016 8:29 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: This is a foolish, but related question. It is, is there a means, in princple, to somehow data mine the minkowski light cone? Conceptually, i

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: The local mathematical rule in this case, say for observer A, is that measurement on his own local particle with give either |+> or |->, with equal pr

Re: Non-locality and MWI

question that I ponder every once in a while. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Apr 18, 2016 08:23 PM Subject: Re: Non-locality and MWI On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 19/04/2016 12:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote: Let me reduce this to simple steps: 1) MWI is an interpretation of QM only. I.e., it reproduces all the results of QM without adding any additional structure or dynamics. What do you mean by QM? I am

Re: Non-locality and MWI

young'ins (Batman-Superman or The Force Awakens). -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Apr 18, 2016 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Non-locality and MWI On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:42 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: ​> ​ Unless there is some

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> So is there a way of knowing which of the 4 yous is you other than by >> observing what Alice and Bob are observing? I >> ​ >> f there is I can't imagine what it could be. > > > ​> ​ > There doesn't need to be. > ​If you want to know what

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:42 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > Unless there is some physical ionteraction tween local closely related > universes, its all bupkas, or cyhers, Its a breath taking concept in the > hug everett sense of things, but we

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun,

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Jesse wrote:I don't think this is how it's supposed to work for those who argue the MWI is local like Deutsch. Rather the idea is that "splitting" into worlds is local, not global; so one experimenter locally splits into copies that see |+> and |-> when they measure their particle, likewise the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 18/04/20

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrot

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: The futur

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> The future light cones of the observers will overlap at a time determined >> by their initial separation, regardless of whether

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 12:26 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett > wrote: ​ >> ​ There is only one Alice and one Bob ​ in every world that I am talking about too, but there are 4 different worlds, and in each world th

Re: Non-locality and MWI

species except an an abstraction of mathematical physics.Continue having intellectual fun. -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2016 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Non-locality and MWI On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​>> ​

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​>> ​ >> There is only one Alice and one Bob >> ​ in every world that I am talking about too, but there are 4 different >> worlds, and in each world they observe 4 unique particles; and 4 different >> yous are observing the >> 4 different >> ​ Alice and

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 11:28 am, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 PM, Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​ >> ​ Alice and Bob meet ​ in 4 different worlds because there are 4 different ways their lab books could be. ​ > ​ There is only

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> ​>> ​ >> Alice and Bob meet >> ​ in 4 different worlds because there are 4 different ways their lab >> books could be. >> > > ​> ​ > There is only one Alice and one Bob in the one world I am talking about. > There is only one Alice and one Bob ​

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: The future light cones of the observers will overlap at a time determined by their initial separation, regardless of whether they send signals to each

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 10:21 am, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​ > ​ Consider the following: Alice and Bob perform their experiments on the entangled pair and record the results (magnet orientation and outcome) in their lab

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > Consider the following: Alice and Bob perform their experiments on the > entangled pair and record the results (magnet orientation and outcome) in > their lab books. They then go on with other things. Some weeks later they > meet up at a cafe down

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The future light cones of the observers will overlap at a time determined > by their initial separation, regardless of whether they send signals to > each other or not. > Of course, I never meant to suggest otherwise. Imagining a central

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/17/2016 4:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/04/2016 5:25 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: "A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, but each chooses the measurement orientation outside the light cone of the other. There are four possible combinations of results, corresponding t

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 18/04/2016 5:25 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: "A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, but each chooses the measurement orientation outside the light cone of the other. There are four possible combinations of results, corresponding to four worlds in the MWI: |+>|+'>, |+>|-'>, |-

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​>> ​ >> assuming A and B were different to begin with and assuming the MWI is >> correct, the universe ​splits into 4 strands with a observer in each one. ​ > > ​> ​ > Sometimes: sometimes only two strands. > ​If you and I because of pure randomness h

Re: Non-locality and MWI

"A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, but each chooses the measurement orientation outside the light cone of the other. There are four possible combinations of results, corresponding to four worlds in the MWI: |+>|+'>, |+>|-'>, |->|+'>, and |->|-'>. Since each observer has a

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 17/04/2016 7:35 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​ > ​ Consider the usual case of a spin singlet that splits into two spin-half components that separate and are measured by A and B at spacelike separation. Ther

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > Consider the usual case of a spin singlet that splits into two spin-half > components that separate and are measured by A and B at spacelike > separation. There are two possible measurement results for each observer, > call them |+> and |->. > ​ >

Non-locality and MWI

On 16/04/2016 12:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: Although all possible combinations of measurement outcomes exist in MWI, it is not clear what limits the results of the two observers to agree with quantum mechanics when they meet up in just one of the

<    1   2