subject:"The All"



> On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI 
>> only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where 
>> Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds 
>> “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
> 
> But being a world is a non-local variable.

I am not sure what this means, but if it means that FTL influences occur 
“physically”, that is one reason more to abandon the concept of “world” or 
“universe”, and QM get closer to what we can expect from digital Mechanism.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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/828915a8-e73f-5d88-25a0-d4905bb2ff83%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/E884212D-26DE-40CF-837D-52F374886E61%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 13:03, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI 
>> only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where 
>> Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds 
>> “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
> 
> 
> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
> suffice at this point.
> 
> 
> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to 
> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
> 
> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no non-local 
> influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just answer the 
> question.
> 
> 
>> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
> 
> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
> 
> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not successful 
> in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just reproduce the 
> standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced that these papers 
> give a fully local explanation for the violation of the Bell inequalities, 
> then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on what, exactly, we 
> are talking about.


When Alice and Bob are separated, even from just one centimetre, then it makes 
no sense to claim that they are in the same world. Alice and Bob can a priori 
find non correlated results, but they will met only their corresponding Alices 
and Bobs. 

The “fully local explanation” is known by everybody: it is the Schroedinger 
equation. If you simulate the SWE of the system Bob+Alice + their particles, on 
a computer, and you interview the majority of Alice and Bob, who met after the 
experiments, they will agree on the correlation, and on the violation of Bell’s 
inequality, despite we know that everything was local, indeed simulated by a 
Babbage machine. 

Bruno




> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRgnvvO9PZGuq8ZR9SLPEmyJ4FuehDK7zch7k0bzhf3Mg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRgnvvO9PZGuq8ZR9SLPEmyJ4FuehDK7zch7k0bzhf3Mg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/3F810FED-D208-458B-98D8-8154CC67C3C0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
>>> talking about:
 |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>> 
>> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I 
>> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>> 
>> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree 
>> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the particles 
>> have separated means.
> 
> Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave, 
> even among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.
> 
> I think that everyone (except you, perhaps), agrees that this equation for 
> the entangled singlet state refers to two particles that might have arbitrary 
> space-time separation. This might not be obvious to you, but it is to 
> everyone else.


Deustch interpret it as a continuum of worlds, like any quantum state, and they 
differentiate locally, as shown by using the Heisenberg picture.

IMO, it is you who are special when thinking that the interpretation of the 
wave is obvious.

Keep in mind that I never really leave Mechanism, so physics is not a science 
which describes reality, only the relatively observable.

Bruno



> 
> 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/CAFxXSLRX4X7NFOkhLvJaEyY8VLHY90m0cc_P8G9z2de1iSYyfA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/752BE4F5-0522-4195-AAE8-1BBA773F89B6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > <mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> >> 
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  >> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> >> 
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that 
> >> Bob
> >>gets only the ket |->,
> >> 
> >> 
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
> >> fact is not an explanation. 
> > 
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> > 
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> > 
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> > for the MWI.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an 
> alternative explanation.

I don’t believe in MW “I”. MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. There 
is just one unitary evolution, which computable, even linear, and always local 
in the Hilbert space. The violation of Bell’s inequality shows the 
inseparability, or non-locality, but there is no FTL influence. It is up in the 
believer in FTL influence to shows them, but as you told me that you don’t 
believe in FTL influences, I am not sure what we are discussing. Now, I do 
believe that QM-with-collapse does introduce FTL influence, even in the case of 
looking to one particle just “diffusing”. If there is a physical collapse of 
the position of the particle, it has to be instaneous.

> We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what are you proposing to replace 
> it? Magic??

OK. We reject all FTL. You might think that some FTL remains in the MWI, but 
just the argument given by Price (although not as general as it could be) shows 
why such FTL are just local apparence in the branches where all resulting Bobs 
and Alices find themselves into.

We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven 
about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical 
reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your 
problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously.

I am ultra-busy, as I teach everyday, (+ a paper to finish), so might be slow 
down a little bit. I have just never seen any paper showing that in the 
QM-without-collapse, FTL influence exist. Of course, I do not believe that when 
Alice makes a measurement, the entire universe is changed. All interactions are 
local, and the singlet state only ascribes to Alice and Bob to the histories 
were the particle have been correlated, locally at the start. But they do not 
know in which “worlds” they re, and all worlds are always realised.

Bruno

> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/E149E31B-6625-40B2-BFC6-3357AB15FF92%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:46:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 4:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the 
>>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world 
>>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice 
>>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>>>
>>>
>> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
>> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
>> suffice at this point.
>>
>>
>> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time 
>>> to bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
>>> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
>>> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>>>
>>
>> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no 
>> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just 
>> answer the question.
>>
>>
>> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
>>> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>>>
>>
>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
> really changed the world.
>
> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>
> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>
> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>
> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
> probability that they get the same result.
>
> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
> weight of 1/2 each.
>
> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
>
>
> "Evolves into" is just MWI-speak for wf collapse into separate worlds.  
> This doesn't solve the problem of why Alice and Bob's worlds are correlated.
>
> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>
> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
> Alice-tail.
>
>
> But that's the problem.  How do they come to have these combinations 
> instead of 50/50.  If you suppose it's something about the wf, then it's 
> non-local because the wf is non-local.  If you suppose it's something that 
> happens because of the interaction between the "worlds" then that something 
> was determined non-locally in the setup using correlated particles.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/6/2019 4:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote:


When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles
state, the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be
correlated. In the world where Alice finds “up", Bob will
find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob
will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.



OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking
for a local causal physical explanation for the observed facts.
Nothing else will suffice at this point.


Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not
the time to bring the correlation, and as the choice of
“Alice”’s direction of spin measurement is arbitrary, unless
you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the influence has to be
FTL. Not so in the MWI.


The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is
no non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation
formed? Just answer the question.



Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of
other MWI so-called explanations, and not one of them has
been satisfactory. These "explanations" are either hopelessly
vague, or they misunderstand what is required, or, like
Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. If
you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking,
you still have not come up with any credible explanation.


It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper,
and it is coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a
many histories approach.


And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler,
indeed, just reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If
you are so convinced that these papers give a fully local
explanation for the violation of the Bell inequalities, then
reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on what, exactly,
we are talking about.

Bruce




EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but 
hasn't really changed the world.


http://settheory.net/many-worlds

The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and 
admit a persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel 
worlds, in each of which things would only "look as if" the collapse 
happened.


*The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*

Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for 
each, the probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally 
there is only 10% probability that they get the same result.


So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition 
(or split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with 
the same weight of 1/2 each.


In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.


"Evolves into" is just MWI-speak for wf collapse into separate worlds.  
This doesn't solve the problem of why Alice and Bob's worlds are correlated.



Then, Alice and Bob meet again.

Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 
90% of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% 
of Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
Alice-tail.


But that's the problem.  How do they come to have these combinations 
instead of 50/50.  If you suppose it's something about the wf, then it's 
non-local because the wf is non-local.  If you suppose it's something 
that happens because of the interaction between the "worlds" then that 
something was determined non-locally in the setup using correlated 
particles.


Brent



Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
For her this changes essentially nothing :
When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving 
from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture 
(10% of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for 
Alice-tail who says "Tail".


But bob's experience here is a bit different :
Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of 
(10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% 
probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself 
between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:38:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in 
> there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert 
> space, waiting to see whether *they become actualized in the course of 
> the evolution.* 
>
>
> What does that mean?  Which ones are not actuallized?  What the theory 
> predicts is not worlds; it predicts there are approximately orthogonal 
> subspaces on which the universal wave function vector has projections.
>
> Brent
>
> Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, even 
> falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an appropriate “past 
> hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are considering a 
> sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds happen automatically 
> 
> .
>
>
>
Sean Carroll, with his book, and book tour, is the celebrated guru on many 
worlds. What he says must be taken as many worlds gospel.

As he says:

  the worlds happen automatically 

.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/afae3279-809d-4521-b09c-432d9366ff41%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds 
in there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in 
Hilbert space, waiting to see whether /*they become actualized in the 
course of the evolution.*/




What does that mean?  Which ones are not actuallized?  What the theory 
predicts is not worlds; it predicts there are approximately orthogonal 
subspaces on which the universal wave function vector has projections.


Brent

Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, 
even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an 
appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and 
are considering a sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds 
happen automatically 
.





--
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/4f968673-854c-c927-3e1f-74e6e2e2492b%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means 
> that Bob 
> >>> gets only the ket |->, 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get 
> that 
> >>> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it 
> as a 
> >>> fact is not an explanation. 
> >> ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both 
> >> Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero. 
> >> 
> >> I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from 
> >> the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are 
> >> contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the 
> >> problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies. 
> >> 
> >> What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a 
> >> nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite 
> >> unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, 
> >> for the MWI. 
>
> ISTM the same FTL "influence" is needed to split the world into two.  I 
> originally thought of the EPR as a split into two worlds starting from 
> Alice's measurement and another split into two worlds starting from 
> Bob's measurement and where these four worlds overlap in the future they 
> interact so as to produce the Bell inequalities in the future overlap.  
> But then I realized that whatever it is about the four worlds that 
> causes them to interact in this way must have originated at the 
> measurement events, otherwise future interactions will not be local 
> anyway. 
>
> Brent 
>
> >
>


The multiple people describing the operation of worlds in the MWI is like 
*Rashomon*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon

@philipthrift

-- 
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/b3ad1026-3447-447d-999c-b50615ce1e7f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:

According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob
gets only the ket |->,

That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.

Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
fact is not an explanation.

ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.

I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.

What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
for the MWI.

ISTM the same FTL "influence" is needed to split the world into two. I
originally thought of the EPR as a split into two worlds starting from
Alice's measurement and another split into two worlds starting from
Bob's measurement and where these four worlds overlap in the future they
interact so as to produce the Bell inequalities in the future overlap.
But then I realized that whatever it is about the four worlds that
causes them to interact in this way must have originated at the
measurement events, otherwise future interactions will not be local anyway.

Brent

Exactly.

Bruno

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, 
the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the 
world where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world 
where Alice finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action 
at a distance.


But being a world is a non-local variable.

Brent

--
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/828915a8-e73f-5d88-25a0-d4905bb2ff83%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:01:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
>>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
>>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
>>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
>>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
>>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
>> really changed the world.
>>
>> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>>
>> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
>> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
>> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
>> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>>
>> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>>
>> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
>> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
>> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
>> probability that they get the same result.
>>
>> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
>> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
>> weight of 1/2 each.
>>
>> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
>> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
>> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>>
>> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
>> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
>> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
>> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
>>
>
> All very well, but what is the mechanism for this to happen -- what is the 
> joint wave function when they meet that has these weights for the relevant 
> branches? How does unitary evolution from the initial state lead to this 
> particular wave function with these probabilities? And what determines the 
> probabilities?
>
> There is no actual causal explanation here.
>  
>
>> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
>> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
>> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
>> Alice-tail.
>>
>> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
>> For her this changes essentially nothing :
>> When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving 
>> from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% 
>> of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who 
>> says "Tail".
>>
>
> Interesting. What is the interaction that occurs when Alice says "head" 
> that causes Bob to deterministically evolve in this way?
>  
>
>> But bob's experience here is a bit different :
>> Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of 
>> (10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% 
>> probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself 
>> between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
>>
>
> So there is a collapse after all?
>  
>
>> Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined 
>> state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either 
>> Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).
>>
>
> There is no dynamics for this in the Schrodinger equation. Since there is 
> no interaction at the intersection of the forward light cones (it is not 
> necessary for Alice and Bob to actually meet; we could have a third party 
> collect the data), the probabilities for the four possible worlds have to 
> have been set while Alice and Bob were still at space-like separations -- 
> in other words, at the time of their individual measurements. Or else there 
> is no explanation for the 10% and 90% probabilities mentioned in this 
> account.
>
> Bruce
>


This (I looked up) came from this dude's site:

http://spoirier.lautre.net/en/

Happy reading.


How does Sean cover EPR in his book?


Everyone has a story to tell.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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/6001096e-4548-45bb-a19a-4c94a357dcbf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just
>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced
>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the
>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on
>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't
> really changed the world.
>
> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>
> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the
> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a
> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of
> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>
> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>
> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously
> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the
> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10%
> probability that they get the same result.
>
> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or
> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same
> weight of 1/2 each.
>
> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2
> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>
> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of
> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90%
> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
>

All very well, but what is the mechanism for this to happen -- what is the
joint wave function when they meet that has these weights for the relevant
branches? How does unitary evolution from the initial state lead to this
particular wave function with these probabilities? And what determines the
probabilities?

There is no actual causal explanation here.


> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of
> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of
> Alice-tail.
>
> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
> For her this changes essentially nothing :
> When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving
> from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10%
> of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who
> says "Tail".
>

Interesting. What is the interaction that occurs when Alice says "head"
that causes Bob to deterministically evolve in this way?


> But bob's experience here is a bit different :
> Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10%
> Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability)
> or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between
> Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
>

So there is a collapse after all?


> Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined
> state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either
> Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).
>

There is no dynamics for this in the Schrodinger equation. Since there is
no interaction at the intersection of the forward light cones (it is not
necessary for Alice and Bob to actually meet; we could have a third party
collect the data), the probabilities for the four possible worlds have to
have been set while Alice and Bob were still at space-like separations --
in other words, at the time of their individual measurements. Or else there
is no explanation for the 10% and 90% probabilities mentioned in this
account.

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/CAFxXSLRnGY2SfAjuxY6g%3DUbLxHG-EnWaJqixRf8C-Jx%3DE%2Bt7WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the 
>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world 
>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice 
>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>>
>>
> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
> suffice at this point.
>
>
> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to 
>> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
>> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
>> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>>
>
> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no 
> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just 
> answer the question.
>
>
> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>>
>>
>> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
>> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>>
>
> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>
> Bruce
>

EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
really changed the world.

http://settheory.net/many-worlds

The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.

*The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*

Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
probability that they get the same result.

So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
weight of 1/2 each.

In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 copies 
: Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
Then, Alice and Bob meet again.

Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
Alice-tail.

Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
For her this changes essentially nothing :
When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving from 
the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% of 
Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who 
says "Tail".

But bob's experience here is a bit different :
Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10% 
Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability) 
or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between 
Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined 
state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either 
Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).

and 

*Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen*
*paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that*
*preserves Einstein Locality *
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1674.pdf

And the "reverse" of many worlds (sum-over-histories):

https

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the
> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world
> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice
> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>
>
OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a
local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will
suffice at this point.


Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to
> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin
> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the
> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>

The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no
non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just
answer the question.


Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI
> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These
> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is
> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all.
> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still
> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>
>
> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is
> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>

And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just
reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced
that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the
Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on
what, exactly, we are talking about.

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/CAFxXSLRgnvvO9PZGuq8ZR9SLPEmyJ4FuehDK7zch7k0bzhf3Mg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been
>> talking about:
>>
>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>>
>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>>
>>
>> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I
>> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>>
>
> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree
> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the
> particles have separated means.
>
>
> Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave,
> even among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.
>

I think that everyone (except you, perhaps), agrees that this equation for
the entangled singlet state refers to two particles that might have
arbitrary space-time separation. This might not be obvious to you, but it
is to everyone else.

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/CAFxXSLRX4X7NFOkhLvJaEyY8VLHY90m0cc_P8G9z2de1iSYyfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:25:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means 
> that Bob 
> >>gets only the ket |->, 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get 
> that 
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it 
> as a 
> >> fact is not an explanation. 
> > 
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both 
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero. 
> > 
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from 
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are 
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the 
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies. 
> > 
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a 
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite 
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, 
> > for the MWI. 
>
> Exactly. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>

Going back to what Carroll precisely specifies:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/

Now, MWI certainly does *predict* the existence of a huge number of 
unobservable worlds. But it doesn’t *postulate* them.* It derives them,* 
from what it does postulate. And the actual postulates of the theory are 
quite simple indeed:

   1. The world is described by a quantum state, which is an element of a 
   kind of vector space known as Hilbert space.
   2. 
   3. The quantum state evolves through time in accordance with the 
   Schrödinger equation, with some particular Hamiltonian.

That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in 
there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert 
space, waiting to see whether they become actualized in the course of the 
evolution. Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — 
indeed, even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an 
appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are 
considering a sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds happen 
automatically 
<http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/>
.

So that is all there is to it. What is more than just not having one world?

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/4c621065-efc2-4934-97c3-70ea1156544e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> >>
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means
> that Bob
> >>gets only the ket |->,
> >>
> >>
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get
> that
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it
> as a
> >> fact is not an explanation.
> >
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> >
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> >
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> > for the MWI.
>
> Exactly.
>

It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an
alternative explanation. We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what
are you proposing to replace it? Magic??

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/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that 
>> Bob
>>gets only the ket |->,
>> 
>> 
>>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
>>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
>> 
>> 
>> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
>> fact is not an explanation. 
> 
> ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> 
> I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> 
> What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> for the MWI.

Exactly.

Bruno


> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/20191006005045.GX14811%40zen.

-- 
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/8B59D88F-44AF-4E90-B51D-D3A459BF26F3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal 
>>> explanation, and Bell rules that out.
>> 
>> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a 
>> unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a 
>> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality” of 
>> Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden variables, 
>> Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob. Withe MW, as 
>> long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a measurement 
>> entangling him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will agree with 
>> what the singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor influence has to 
>> occur.
>> 
>> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she 
>> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.
> 
> Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, 
> but successive entanglement “contagion”.
> 
>> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”
> 
> You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including 
> those Alice will never been able to access.
> 
> Your twisting does not get you out of the fact that you have contradicted 
> yourself.


You need to be more specific than that. I don’t see the contradiction. I 
contradict only you interpretation of the wave, I think.



>  
>> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state
> 
> (Semantic play)
> 
> You agreed that you did not understand the non-local entangled state.

The only thing that I do not understand here is the non-locality of the 
entangled state in the One-universe interpretation of QM.




>  
>> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root of 
>> all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory positions.
> 
> No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full 
> explanation.
> 
> There is no full explanation in any previous post of yours.

OK. One I have more time, I will re-explain more fully.




>  
>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
>> talking about:
>>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
> 
> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I 
> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
> 
> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree 
> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the particles 
> have separated means.

Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave, even 
among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.




>  
> 
> The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all 
> Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.
> 
> Ah, yes. Here we go again. Your really are confused by this state, Bruno.

I take patronising remark like this one as a failure of your part. I just let 
you know.




> You keep referring to the fact that it is rotationally invariant, and can be 
> analysed in any basis, as though that made a substantive difference. The 
> results obtain in any basis, true. But that is a trivial observation of 
> symmetry. It does not explain the observed experimental results.

It explains it, without introducing any FTL action.




> 
>  
>> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for 
>> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when 
>> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is 
>> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-) 
>> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say, 
>> 'up’.
> 
> Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.
> 
> Read on, old son. You might find that this is mentioned below.
>  
>> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob gets 
>> only the ket |->,
> 
> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that 
&

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  
> wrote:
> 
> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that 
> Bob
> gets only the ket |->,
> 
> 
> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> 
> 
> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
> fact is not an explanation. 

ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.

I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.

What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
for the MWI.

-- 

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
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/20191006005045.GX14811%40zen.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Philip Thrift



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 6:49:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't deny 
>>> Hilbert space and keep MWI. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :
>>
>> Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure 
>> theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference. Whilst 
>> the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions” formulation of 
>> quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are restricted to 
>> “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to 
>> answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without 
>> observers.
>>
>> In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT, which 
>> was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind, uses 
>> spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and does not 
>> feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The use of 
>> histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects similarly, 
>> keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems. What a history 
>> exactly is depends
>> on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full (spacetime) 
>> description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition, whilst Hilbert space 
>> quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and collapse for its dynamics, in 
>> QMT we use the quantum measure, which measures the sum of quantum 
>> interferences between pairs of histories in an event. 
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
>
> QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> *ENERGY LEVELS.*
>
> Brent
>



Differentiable-Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6551

Path Integral of Coulomb System
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/public_html/kleiner_reb5/psfiles/pthic13.pdf

Energy levels and expectation values via accelerated path integral Monte 
Carlo
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/128/1/012062/pdf

etc.

@philipthrift


 

-- 
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/11aabf16-0e9c-4790-88ab-600ee6ae006a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

You can't deny
Hilbert space and keep MWI.

Brent

QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
:

Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability
measure theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum
interference. Whilst the usual “Hilbert space, operators and
wavefunctions” formulation of quantum mechanics will predict
probabilities, they are restricted to “operator at some
time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to answer
inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without
observers.

In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT,
which was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in
mind, uses spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its
theory, and does not feature any observer dependence or any
collapse mechanic. The use of histories also allows us to treat
quantum and classical objects similarly, keeping the theory
general and applicable to many systems. What a history exactly is
depends
on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full
(spacetime) description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition,
whilst Hilbert space quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and
collapse for its dynamics, in QMT we use the quantum measure,
which measures the sum of quantum interferences between pairs of
histories in an event.

@philipthrift

Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

Brent

QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf

@philipthrift

*ENERGY LEVELS.*

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Philip Thrift



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>> You can't deny 
>> Hilbert space and keep MWI. 
>>
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>
>
> QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :
>
> Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure 
> theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference. Whilst 
> the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions” formulation of 
> quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are restricted to 
> “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to 
> answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without 
> observers.
>
> In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT, which 
> was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind, uses 
> spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and does not 
> feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The use of 
> histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects similarly, 
> keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems. What a history 
> exactly is depends
> on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full (spacetime) 
> description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition, whilst Hilbert space 
> quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and collapse for its dynamics, in 
> QMT we use the quantum measure, which measures the sum of quantum 
> interferences between pairs of histories in an event. 
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
>
>
> Brent
>




QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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/aaceea72-62b3-4076-96d2-f3a6f985f6d4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

You can't deny
Hilbert space and keep MWI.

Brent

QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :

Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure
theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference.
Whilst the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions”
formulation of quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are
restricted to “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is
thus unable to answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a
description without observers.

In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT,
which was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind,
uses spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and
does not feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The
use of histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects
similarly, keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems.
What a history exactly is depends
on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full
(spacetime) description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition,
whilst Hilbert space quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and
collapse for its dynamics, in QMT we use the quantum measure, which
measures the sum of quantum interferences between pairs of histories
in an event.

@philipthrift

Which ends with a list of unsolved problems for QMT "These questions are
challenging and will likely further define and alter what evolving
scheme is appropriate for producing the realities we expect. " I would
add one more problem: Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

And in any case it gives up MWI...which is what I said.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable
>> causal explanation, and Bell rules that out.
>>
>>
>> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In
>> a unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a
>> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality”
>> of Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden
>> variables, Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob.
>> Withe MW, as long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a
>> measurement entangling him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will
>> agree with what the singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor
>> influence has to occur.
>>
>
> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she
> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.
>
>
> Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light,
> but successive entanglement “contagion”.
>
> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”
>
>
> You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including
> those Alice will never been able to access.
>

Your twisting does not get you out of the fact that you have contradicted
yourself.


> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state
>
>
> (Semantic play)
>

You agreed that you did not understand the non-local entangled state.


> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root
> of all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory
> positions.
>
>
> No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full
> explanation.
>

There is no full explanation in any previous post of yours.


> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been
> talking about:
>
> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>
> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>
>
> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I
> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>

For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree
with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the
particles have separated means.


The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all
> Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.
>

Ah, yes. Here we go again. Your really are confused by this state, Bruno.
You keep referring to the fact that it is rotationally invariant, and can
be analysed in any basis, as though that made a substantive difference. The
results obtain in any basis, true. But that is a trivial observation of
symmetry. It does not explain the observed experimental results.



> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for
> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when
> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is
> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-)
> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say,
> 'up’.
>
>
> Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.
>

Read on, old son. You might find that this is mentioned below.


> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob
> gets only the ket |->,
>
>
> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
>

Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
fact is not an explanation.

in the basis of Alice's measurement. Similarly if Alice gets 'down', Bob
> must measure the |+> ket, in Alice's basis. By rotating these kets into his
> local measurement basis, Bob gets  'up' or 'down' with the required
> probabilities.
>
> … relatively to their corresponding Alices, only.
>

Oh dear..


> This is a what your statement "when Alice do a measurement she influences
> and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob" means. And I agree with
> this.
>
>
> I am not sure, because that influence never get higher than the speed of
> light.
>

Who said that it did? Read on and stop interrupting.



> Bob could find a non correlated state, and that will mean that such Bob
> and Alice are in different worlds, and will never meet. The state just
> descri

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal 
>> explanation, and Bell rules that out.
> 
> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a 
> unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a 
> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality” of 
> Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden variables, 
> Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob. Withe MW, as 
> long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a measurement entangling 
> him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will agree with what the 
> singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor influence has to occur.
> 
> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she 
> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.

Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, but 
successive entanglement “contagion”.

> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”

You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including those 
Alice will never been able to access. 

> 
> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state

(Semantic play)

> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root of 
> all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory positions.

No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full 
explanation.

> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
> talking about:
>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
> This refers to two spacetime locations;

You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I disagree 
with this interpretation since the start.

The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all 
Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.

> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for 
> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when 
> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is 
> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-) 
> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say, 'up’.

Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.

> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob gets 
> only the ket |->,

That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that state, 
and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 

> in the basis of Alice's measurement. Similarly if Alice gets 'down', Bob must 
> measure the |+> ket, in Alice's basis. By rotating these kets into his local 
> measurement basis, Bob gets  'up' or 'down' with the required probabilities.

… relatively to their corresponding Alices, only.

> 
> This is a what your statement "when Alice do a measurement she influences and 
> changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob" means. And I agree with this.

I am not sure, because that influence never get higher than the speed of light. 
Bob could find a non correlated state, and that will mean that such Bob and 
Alice are in different worlds, and will never meet. The state just describes 
their possible relative states.

> So (this all assumes, without loss of generality, a frame in which Alice's 
> measurement is first) Alice's measurement does inevitably affect the state 
> that Bob can measure.

Which Bob? She does not affect Bob’s state “physically”, she just learn that 
she is in a universe in which she can access only to the Bob who will find the 
correlated state, and never access to the Bob who get different states. No FTL 
influence.

If there is only one Alice and Bob, then there would be FTL influences.

> The question then is, how does this effect come about? What is the mechanism? 
> You appear to be only able to think of some FTL influence.

No. You are the one inking this. With the MW, at no moment Alice change the 
state of Bob. She just change her own map of histories available. She knows 
that she can no more met a Bob with another state than the correlated one.
That is why I take Aspect experience as an evidence of the other worlds, as I 
do not give any sense to any FTL influence. 

> But that cannot work. There are a lot of problems with such an idea. Apart 
> from violations of special relativity, it would involve the exchange of some 
> par

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 5 Oct 2019, at 01:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2019 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated in 
>>> tests of Bell's inequality.
>> 
>> No, but what is violated in Bell’s inequality is the idea that the state in 
>> Hilbert space describe a physical reality,
> 
> In another post you just expounded at length on why "reality" is not well 
> defined and shouldn't be referred to .

I guess I was talking of “Reality”. The basic ontology. It is not well defined, 
but it can be the subject of study, in theology/metaphysics.


> 
>> when it describes only the relative first person plural sharable map of the 
>> computations/histories that they can access to, personally.
> 
> No.  That, in the MWI is merely the projection onto one subspace,

I agree. 



> the subspace in which the observers and instruments all register a particular 
> measurement result.  The state in Hilbert space has projections on other 
> subspaces in which other results are seen. This idea of the state in Hilbert 
> space is essential to MWI.  You can't deny Hilbert space and keep MWI.

I have not done that. All projections are taken into account in the MWI.

My only point is that there is no FTL influence when we abandon the collapse 
postulate, *and* that there are FTL influence (despite no signalling) when we 
introduce the collapse postulate, and don’t throw away all possibility of 
physical realism.

Bruno



> 
>> See my recent post to Bruce.
> 
> I did, and answered it too.
> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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/298d8f55-2896-d2de-5e5f-27c206d7cdbb%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/518B0F00-305A-4E56-94B4-BD0E569EB61C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 5 Oct 2019, at 01:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2019 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence "The 
>> wave function itself is non-local”.
> 
> The wave-function of two entangled EPR particles is a function of two 
> variables, which are space-like separate locations.

No problem with this. This does not imply any FTL, unlike a rigid ruler in 
classical mechanics, for example.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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/4190460a-357c-7e0c-6ca5-2c96703bb0ec%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/361DF98B-0871-4B6B-85B7-102CFCD15143%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-05 Thread Philip Thrift

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
> You can't deny 
> Hilbert space and keep MWI. 
>
>
> Brent 
>
>

QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :

Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure 
theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference. Whilst 
the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions” formulation of 
quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are restricted to 
“operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to 
answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without 
observers.

In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT, which was 
constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind, uses spacetime 
objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and does not feature any 
observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The use of histories also 
allows us to treat quantum and classical objects similarly, keeping the 
theory general and applicable to many systems. What a history exactly is 
depends
on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full (spacetime) 
description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition, whilst Hilbert space 
quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and collapse for its dynamics, in 
QMT we use the quantum measure, which measures the sum of quantum 
interferences between pairs of histories in an event. 

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/abcf021c-d8f3-468d-9bcf-525ebc7bbe7a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal
> explanation, and Bell rules that out.
>
>
> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a
> unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a
> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality”
> of Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden
> variables, Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob.
> Withe MW, as long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a
> measurement entangling him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will
> agree with what the singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor
> influence has to occur.
>

You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she
influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob". Then you
say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur."

I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state
-- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root of
all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory
positions. Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we
have been talking about:

|psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).

This refers to two spacetime locations; let us call them (t1,x1) and
(t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for 3-vectors. The spacetime interval
between these particles or events when measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 -
(x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the
separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-) metric that I am using. When
Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say, 'up'. According to the above
non-separable wave function, that means that Bob gets only the ket |->, in
the basis of Alice's measurement. Similarly if Alice gets 'down', Bob must
measure the |+> ket, in Alice's basis. By rotating these kets into his
local measurement basis, Bob gets  'up' or 'down' with the required
probabilities.

This is a what your statement "when Alice do a measurement she influences
and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob" means. And I agree with
this. So (this all assumes, without loss of generality, a frame in which
Alice's measurement is first) Alice's measurement does inevitably affect
the state that Bob can measure. The question then is, how does this effect
come about? What is the mechanism? You appear to be only able to think of
some FTL influence. But that cannot work. There are a lot of problems with
such an idea. Apart from violations of special relativity, it would involve
the exchange of some particle or tachyon that conveys Alice's result and
polarizer orientation to Bob *before* he makes his measurement. Dynamics
for that might be conceivable, but there is a problem in deciding whether
it is a particle or an FTL tachyon that must be exchanged. Notice that when
this information has to be sent out from Alice's measurement, Bob still has
not made his measurement, and there is no way at the spacetime point
(t1,x1) to know when Bob will make his measurement. It could be at either
space-like or time-like separation, s^2 > 0 or s^2 < 0, and there is no way
of knowing, so there can be no suitable dynamics that will send a particle
or a tachyon appropriate to the situation (because the situation is unknown
at the relevant time).

There is an additional dynamical problem in understanding how this particle
or tachyon conveying Alice's information is actually going to affect Bob's
state when it arrives there. If the correct statistics are to come out at
the end, it would seem that this intermediate particle must suppress that
part of Bob's state that is inconsistent with Alice's result. I leave the
design of such dynamics to you --  it is beyond me to even begin to imagine
it. On top of this, there is the problem that in some other frame, Bob's
measurement is first, so his measurement must affect the joint state in a
symmetrical way!

I think this goes beyond impossibility to the point of absurdity.

So what are we left with? I think we can rule out FTL interaction, or even
sub-light speed interactions for time-like separations, because there are
too many contradictory requirements on such a particle exchange of
information. But the influence must occur, because the final correlations
can only be explained in that way. (Attempts to explain the correlations
away by MWI, or further interactions when the light cones overlap, have all
failed. Mainly because there are no relevant interactions at the point of
overlap of the future light cones from the separated measurements.)

We are left with a non-local influence, or interaction. Where by non-local,
I mean precisely that -- an ac

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/4/2019 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated 
in tests of Bell's inequality.


No, but what is violated in Bell’s inequality is the idea that the 
state in Hilbert space describe a physical reality,


In another post you just expounded at length on why "reality" is not 
well defined and shouldn't be referred to .


when it describes only the relative first person plural sharable map 
of the computations/histories that they can access to, personally.


No.  That, in the MWI is merely the projection onto one subspace, the 
subspace in which the observers and instruments all register a 
particular measurement result.  The state in Hilbert space has 
projections on other subspaces in which other results are seen. This 
idea of the state in Hilbert space is essential to MWI.  You can't deny 
Hilbert space and keep MWI.



See my recent post to Bruce.


I did, and answered it too.

Brent

--
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/298d8f55-2896-d2de-5e5f-27c206d7cdbb%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/4/2019 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence 
"The wave function itself is non-local”.


The wave-function of two entangled EPR particles is a function of two 
variables, which are space-like separate locations.


Brent

--
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/4190460a-357c-7e0c-6ca5-2c96703bb0ec%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 Oct 2019, at 18:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
>>> inequality couldn't be violated.
>> Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality 
>> is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if 
>> you agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
>> Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
>> with mechanism are the real thing). 
>> Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some 
>> FTL action.
> 
> Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated in tests 
> of Bell's inequality.

No, but what is violated in Bell’s inequality is the idea that the state in 
Hilbert space describe a physical reality, when it describes only the relative 
first person plural sharable map of the computations/histories that they can 
access to, personally.
See my recent post to Bruce.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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/af476db4-c91e-bebd-8498-42a26596f100%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/CAE012E0-FC15-433B-8044-DB228A402871%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:08 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >  > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
> >> start.
> > 
> > No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
> > inequality couldn't be violated.
> 
> Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality 
> is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if 
> you agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
> Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
> with mechanism are the real thing). 
> Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some 
> FTL action.
> 
> I think you have missed the point, Bruno. The wave function itself is 
> non-local.

I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence "The 
wave function itself is non-local”.

> Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been talking about:
> 
> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
> 
> The kets in the tensor product refer to different particles, with arbitrary 
> separation in space-time. But this is a single state. Because it is 
> non-separable, and refers to different spacetime locations, it is 
> intrinsically non-local. You can rotate it as much as you like in Hilbert 
> space, but you will never remove the non-locality. That is the way it is -- 
> it will always refer inevitably to two separate spacetime locations.

We do interpret the state very differently. I have no problem with labelling 
such a state “non-local”, but I interpret it as a set of universe where the 
particles are correlated, in all direction. If some bob and Alice share such 
state by accompanying each particles, they will always agreed on the 
correlation *with the Alice and Bob of their own universes*. But as long as 
they have no make a measurement, they are in all correlated-particles. 

If Alice makes a measurement and find “up”, she knows that the only Bob she has 
access to will have found “down”.
If Bob makes a measurement and find “up”,  he knows that the only Alice he has 
access to will have found “down”.

And this in all directions, and when Alice and Bob makes their measurement they 
just see in which branches they are on a continuum of all possible spins.

In this way, no FTL influence, and we have the inseparability,or non-locality.

> 
> As Wallace reports Deutsch to have said: "quantum theory is a theory of local 
> interactions with non-local states

I can agree with this. But such non-locality implies FTL influence (even if 
without any signalling possible) in any unique universe picture.

> ." So with EPR correlations, the state is intrinsically non-loca

And I am OK with this.

> l but all the measurement interactions are local.

OK.

> The trouble is that, because of Bell's theorem, there is no local causal 
> explanation of the correlations —

In one universe? That would implies FTL influences. But in the MW, we keep that 
non local fateure of the wave, but get an interpretation where we see that 
neither Bob nor Alice influence each other particles at a distance. They will 
each meet the relevant corresponding Bob and lice in their histories. The wave 
is the map of their accessible histories among a continuum (or bigger).

> they are evidence of the non-locality of the state.

No problem with this, and that is why I said that if Aspect confirms QM and the 
violation of BI, I would take it as a confirmation of the existence of the 
parallel histories, but I might be biased as this confirms what O predicted 
from simple arithmetic +.Mechanism.

> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal 
> explanation, and Bell rules that out.

This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a 
unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a measurement 
she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality” of Bob. They 
still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden variables, Alice does 
restrict instantaneously the state available Bob. Withe MW, as long as the 
light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a measurement entangling him so other 
Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will agree with what the singlet state 
predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor influence has to occur.

The world/reality/histories/computation-seen-from-the-multiplying-subject 
differentiate as decoherence speed, which is alway slower than light.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:19, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> >>> I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. 
> 
> >> If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the 
> >> polarization of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and 
> >> they always exist in one and only one definite state.
>  
> > I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'.
> 
> Which word didn't you understand?
>  
> > I suggest you read Maudlin's paper:
> 
> I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that 
> time's arrow and all the laws of physics are primitive, that is to say they 
> can not be reduced to something else, certainly not to arithmetic. 


Can you give the reference? I mean I would like to see the contexte, but I am 
not astonished, and don’t doubt he could say this.

It is not astonishing at all.  In his Olympia paper(*), he got the same 
conclusion than me, i.e. that we cannot have Mechanism and Materialism 
together. Each one implies the negation of the other.

He got this by an argument which is more similar to the movie graph argument 
(MGA) than to the UDA (which requires the understanding of the mathematical 
definition of a computer in step 7).

But in its conclusion he seems to keep Materialism. He has not seen the many 
computations “formulation” or “internal interpretation” of elementary 
arithmetic (or combinator algebra).

Bruno

(*) Maudlin, T. (1989). Computation and Consciousness. The Journal of 
Philosophy, pages 407-432.


> 
> > "Einteinian realism" and shows that this criterion is analytic -- depending 
> > only on the meanings of the words involved.
> 
> Well duh how could it be otherwise?!  I've clearly explained what the 
> word "realism" means to Carroll and to modern physicists, and although there 
> may be controversy among them about if realism is true or not there is no 
> controversy over the meaning of the word. Modern physicists don't invent 
> idiosyncratic meanings for common words.
> 
>  John K Clark
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2yKgFE0DVNVVJT%3Dfwoer5dk-WZfTgpYUA9XcWkYAovyw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2yKgFE0DVNVVJT%3Dfwoer5dk-WZfTgpYUA9XcWkYAovyw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/2E8E08AF-8524-44FD-BE08-09686EABF958%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
inequality couldn't be violated.

Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is 
in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if you 
agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
with mechanism are the real thing).
Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some FTL 
action.


Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated in 
tests of Bell's inequality.


Brent

--
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/af476db4-c91e-bebd-8498-42a26596f100%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:08 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at
> the start.
> >
> > No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise
> Bell's inequality couldn't be violated.
>
> Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non
> locality is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is
> obvious if you agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in
> some space. Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in
> Everett and with mechanism are the real thing).
> Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some
> FTL action.
>

I think you have missed the point, Bruno. The wave function itself is
non-local. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been talking
about:

|psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).

The kets in the tensor product refer to different particles, with arbitrary
separation in space-time. But this is a single state. Because it is
non-separable, and refers to different spacetime locations, it is
intrinsically non-local. You can rotate it as much as you like in Hilbert
space, but you will never remove the non-locality. That is the way it is --
it will always refer inevitably to two separate spacetime locations.

As Wallace reports Deutsch to have said: "quantum theory is a theory of
local interactions with non-local states." So with EPR correlations, the
state is intrinsically non-local but all the measurement interactions are
local. The trouble is that, because of Bell's theorem, there is no local
causal explanation of the correlations -- they are evidence of the
non-locality of the state. And there is no FTL action -- that would be a
local hidden variable causal explanation, and Bell rules that out.

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/CAFxXSLSewE7FaznrJTY6OeQO240hqKX4DSm6rW1743PGfUQc%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>>
> *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. *
> >> If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the 
> >> polarization
> of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always
> exist in one and only one definite state.

> *I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'.*

Which word didn't you understand?

> *> I suggest you read Maudlin's paper:*
>

I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that
time's arrow and all the laws of physics are primitive, that is to say
they can not be reduced to something else, certainly not to arithmetic.

*> "Einteinian realism" and shows that this criterion is analytic --
> depending only on the meanings of the words involved.*

Well duh how could it be otherwise?!  I've clearly explained what the
word "realism" means to Carroll and to modern physicists, and although
there may be controversy among them about if realism is true or not there
is no controversy over the meaning of the word. Modern physicists don't
invent idiosyncratic meanings for common words.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv2yKgFE0DVNVVJT%3Dfwoer5dk-WZfTgpYUA9XcWkYAovyw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 2 Oct 2019, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM John Clark  <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett  <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> >many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell non-locality 
> >-- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the Bell 
> >inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists
> 
> MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must not 
> only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they are 
> not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is not realistic. 
> And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated, 
> therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least one of the 
> following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3:
> 
> 1) Realism
> 2) Superdeterminism 
> 3) Locality
> 
> Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe 
> Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.
> 
> Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says.
> Locality is certainly ruled out. Bell's result is a theorem, not a 
> conjecture. And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations.
> I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. But Einsteinian realism is certainly 
> false -- it is ruled out experimentally.

MWI saves Einstein’s realism, And the “3p” (truly 1p-plural) locality, making 
the violation of Bell’s inequality avoiding any FTL action.

Bruno


> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSya17yDyxSJb_5e1gWb-XFWZ6UDkWLyv4dzWUWicWHig%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSya17yDyxSJb_5e1gWb-XFWZ6UDkWLyv4dzWUWicWHig%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/00C7EDD7-7792-4E42-91BC-244F230D790A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until 
 November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell 
 non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is 
 a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the 
 like. This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting 
 is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that 
 the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. 
 Bruno and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being 
 associated with the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of 
 physical interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a 
 result is not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a 
 lot of loose thinking about this "splitting" process.
 
 The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with 
 aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by 
 destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light 
 carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not 
 coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing 
 interference, then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
>>> But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum 
>>> Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the 
>>> environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information 
>>> spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the 
>>> future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the 
>>> inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information 
>>> isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; 
>>> it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no 
>>> small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent, 
>>> but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero 
>>> out cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the 
>>> mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.
>> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
>> start.
> 
> No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
> inequality couldn't be violated.


Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is 
in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if you 
agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
with mechanism are the real thing). 
Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some FTL 
action.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and 
>> we see non locality only from a branch/term perspective. But without 
>> collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL communication, nor 
>> any FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique world would be as much 
>> embarrassing). That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a 
>> quasi-confimartion of the “other histories” being as real as our’s.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/82e40b4e-7a51-c2c7-2b37-2fbb5923e9b4%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/acff7b2f-7674-708b-47ca-6c7ba1db393c%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/702104E8-E97A-45A8-A4FD-F8C07D58286B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:24, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>  So, the best way to interpret the 
> multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes 
> exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one 
> parameter family of parallel worlds with the same information content. 
> In QM the information present in a world cannot in general be retrieved 
> from another world, in general one needs to consider superpositions of 
> different worlds. 
> 
> Saibal 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the basic problem:
> 
>   MW people believe in an informational (immaterial) reality, not a 
> material reality.
> 
> So when they look at an apple, whether whole or split in two, it's just 
> information.
> 
> Information can be multiplied without any cost: one can take a 0110 and make 
> !001 (~0110) in addition, because 0s and 1s are immaterial, and there is no 
> cost in making new information.
> 
> But that is not the case with matter.

So, maybe the time has come to abandon the “matter” idea, as experience 
confirms its non-sense (known since Plato, but forgotten since 
philosophy/theology has abandoned its original seriousness.

There are just no evidences, and it makes everything very complicated,  in 
psychology, theology, physics, … But since some times many confuse the obvious 
evidences for a physical reality, with evidence for a metaphysical idea “the 
primaryness of that physical reality”.

Today people argue against the origin of the physical reality, like religious 
people argue against the origin of humanity (and evolution).

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ddd8651-8af2-4645-8ebe-24ad75b4b06f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ddd8651-8af2-4645-8ebe-24ad75b4b06f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/FFEE931B-9DAA-469E-B0C7-6A8EEB41E126%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 1 Oct 2019, at 14:13, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >  > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> 
> >> I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until 
> >> November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell 
> >> non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is 
> >> a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the 
> >> like. This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting 
> >> is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that 
> >> the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. 
> >> Bruno and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being 
> >> associated with the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of 
> >> physical interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a 
> >> result is not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a 
> >> lot of loose thinking about this "splitting" process.
> >> 
> >> The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with 
> >> aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by 
> >> destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light 
> >> carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not 
> >> coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing 
> >> interference, then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
> > 
> > But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum 
> > Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the 
> > environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information 
> > spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the 
> > future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the 
> > inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information 
> > isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; 
> > it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no 
> > small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent, 
> > but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero 
> > out cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the 
> > mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.
> 
> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
> start.
> 
> How? The wave function itself is non-local.

It looks like that from the one term perspective, but the universal wave is 
local. It is “just” a rotation in some space. All wave are typically local.



>  
> The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and we 
> see non locality only from a branch/term perspective.
> 
> But every branch in the Everettian picture shows non-locality.

Yes, but only due to the statistical interference between all terms of the 
wave. The non-locality just shows that we have to take into account the 
information even when it is no more accessible in direct or interactive way.



> Where do the other branches make each branch actually local? You are still 
> not explaining anything.


I am not trying to explain everything. I am just saying that the violation of 
Bell’s inequality does not prove any physical FTM influences.



>  
> But without collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL 
> communication, nor any FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique world 
> would be as much embarrassing).
> 
> Neither collapse nor FTL are the issue. We can agree that there is no FTL 
> action because that would amount to a local explanation -- the FTL exchange 
> would interact locally at each end. The effect is non-local because the 
> non-separable wave function is  intrinsically non-local. Lorentz invariance 
> is intact because of the no signalling theorems.

You lost me with “the wave function is intrinsically non local”.



> 
> That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a quasi-confimartion of the 
> “other histories” being as real as our’s.
> 
> As I said, the thought that Bell might be local in many worlds was really the 
> last hope for MWI being of any use. But all attempts to demonstrate this have 
> failed. The sort of mumbo jumbo you offe

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:04:08 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *how did the extra matter come from?*
>
>
> Unlike the second law of thermodynamics which is based on logic and 
> observation the first law is based on observation alone, every time we test 
> it in a lab it seems to work, but it has never been tested at the very 
> largest scale, that of the cosmos. To answer your question the extra matter 
> comes from absolutely nothing and thus its true, Many Worlds violates the 
> law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that 
> regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories violate the conservation of 
> mass/energy, they MUST. Noether's Theorem says if things generally look 
> about the same from one time period to another then matter/energy is 
> conserved, but in our expanding accelerating universe things do *NOT* 
> look the same from one eon to another so energy can't be completely 
> conserved. Mass/energy is only approximately conserved and to the same 
> extent that at the largest scale the universe looks approximately the same 
> from one minute to the next.
>
> And Einstein told us in the early 1920s that if empty space contains a 
> residual vacuum energy in the form of negative pressure (see below) it 
> would cause the universe to expand, that is to say more empty space would 
> be created which would contain more vacuum energy which would create more 
> empty space etc. If vacuum energy exists and has a value of 10^-10 joules 
> per cubic metre it would explain why our universe is expanding, One joule 
> is only enough energy to light up a one watt lightbulb for one second so 
> that's a very low energy density, but there is a lot of empty space and it 
> would be enough to get the job done.  
>  
> Note: The  vacuum energy density is constant because there is nothing 
> around that would cause it to change. And the pressure is negative because 
> if you had a cylinder of vacuum in your lab and you pulled out a piston 
> containing it that would create more vacuum and thus more resulting vacuum 
> energy would be created, and that energy must have come from the cylinder. 
> So if the vacuum wants to pull the piston in your lab back into the 
> cylinder then the pressure must be negative.
>
>  John K Clark 
>
>

The mechanism of cosmological inflation making new matter is another 
question:

http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation

... In [Hawking's] view, in light of quantum mechanics, it doesn’t make 
sense to talk about the origin and evolution of the universe as if it 
followed a single unique trajectory. Instead, he argues, we ought to use 
the universe as we observe it *right now*—coupled with the assumption that 
it arose from nothing—and take a quantum superposition of every possible 
history that could have led from nothing to now. It’s not that we don’t 
know which history really occurred—it’s that they *all* occurred. Rather 
than a multiverse with a single history, you have a single universe with 
multiple histories. When Hawking takes the sum of these histories to 
determine the most probable path, it is—voila!—a history in which the early 
universe went through inflation. Inflation pops out on its own, from a 
theory that doesn’t involve a multiverse.

Many roads, it seems, lead back to inflation and inflation in turn leads to 
unexpected places. Steinhardt, Ijjas and Loeb are standing by their 
criticisms of the theory, and have made a website 
<http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/> to reiterate them. But the 33 
leading physicists who signed the letter—and countless others—are more 
confident in inflation than ever, exploring its strange territory, 
optimistic that it will eventually lead them to its own replacement: a more 
complete theory of the universe’s origin. That, certainly, *is* science. 
And it is pretty spectacular.

My question was about the mechanism of quantum many worlds generating new 
matter: every time a single particle is involved in a double-slit 
experiment the entire universe multiplies (branches)

*Single Photon Interference*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U

What happens when single photons of light pass through a double slit and 
are detected by a photomultiplier tube? In 1801 Thomas Young seemed to 
settle a long-running debate about the nature of light with his double slit 
experiment. He demonstrated that light passing through two slits creates 
patterns like water waves, with the implication that it must be a wave 
phenomenon. However, experimental results in the early 1900s found that 
light energy is not smoothly distributed as in a classical wave, rather it 
comes in discrete packets, called quanta and later photons. These are 
indivisible particles o

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:53 AM John Clark  wrote:

>
> And local hidden variables are ruled out by experiment *only* if you
> assume things are realistic. Well OK... technically you also have to assume
> things are not Superdeterministic, but if that's not a reasonable
> assumption nothing is.
>

I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'. I suggest you
read Maudlin's paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1826

He discusses the EPR criterion of realism, known usually as "Einteinian
realism" and shows that this criterion is analytic -- depending only on the
meanings of the words involved. Rejecting Einstein's version of realism
does not invalidate Bell's result (it just shows that you do not know what
the words mean.) -- the observed violations of Bell's inequality show
that nature is non-local.

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/CAFxXSLRDUXMpi-Ap8Q7zALO37c8vpu_YB-%3DfcQJ7rTKFaV8-zw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:39 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> >> exparament has proven beyond doubt that Bell's inequality is WRONG.
>
>
> * > You mean Bell's inequality is violated by quantum entanglements*
>

No, I mean only that Bell's inequality is wrong and we know that from
experiment; reasonable people can argue over why it is wrong but not over
the fact that it is wrong.

> > ...which means at least one of its premises is not true.  The obvious
> one is locality.
>

Maybe, although if one thing can have an instant affect on something
halfway across the universe that is not diminished by distance then
it's amazing humans have managed to figure out as much physics as they
have, it sorta seems like you'd have to understand everything before you
could understand anything. So  maybe its something else, maybe it's Realism
that's wrong, something has to be.

>>If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the 
>>polarization
>> of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always
>> exist in one and only one definite state.
>
>
>
> * > Then that state is a local variable and would make it impossible to
> violate Bell's inequality.*
>

If a state doesn't change then it isn't a variable. And local hidden
variables are ruled out by experiment *only* if you assume things are
realistic. Well OK... technically you also have to assume things are not
Superdeterministic, but if that's not a reasonable assumption nothing is.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv0CJsouYOYY02A_77n3d1h45h9a-U41cPP2axKZrLA95g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/2/2019 5:48 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't
Hooft says.

That is also my opinion, my strong opinion. It seems very contrived
that the initial conditions of the universe were set up in exactly the
right way for it to fool us forever. I am reminded of Einstein who
said "/Nature is subtle but not malicious/".

> /Locality is certainly ruled out./

Local hidden variables are ruled out if nature is realistic.

> /Bell's result is a theorem, not a conjecture. /

Yes, Bell's inequality is a theorem that can be derived using just
high school algebra starting from the assumptions that things are
local and things are realistic.

/> And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations./

If that were true then the MWI and all other quantum interpretations
must be dead wrong because exparament has proven beyond doubt that
Bell's inequality is WRONG.

You mean Bell's inequality is violated by quantum entanglements...which
means at least one of its premises is not true. The obvious one is
locality. MW are a non-local as you can get...which world you are in is
a non-local variable.

The high school algebra used to derive it is not wrong therefore one
or more of the assumptions it is based on must be wrong. Many Worlds
predicts that Bell's Inequality would fail an experimental test
because Many Worlds does not assume realism.

>///I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. /

If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the
polarization of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed
and they always exist in one and only one definite state.

Then that state is a local variable and would make it impossible to
violate Bell's inequality.

Brent

John K Clark
--
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0p-eN5hWeesk4ZUOefLtZuX_9E6JSWcEk76pmTMhCSpQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0p-eN5hWeesk4ZUOefLtZuX_9E6JSWcEk76pmTMhCSpQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

> Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says.

That is also my opinion, my strong opinion. It seems very contrived that
the initial conditions of the universe were set up in exactly the right way
for it to fool us forever. I am reminded of Einstein who said "*Nature is
subtle but not malicious*".

> *Locality is certainly ruled out.*

Local hidden variables are ruled out if nature is realistic.

> *Bell's result is a theorem, not a conjecture. *

Yes, Bell's inequality is a theorem that can be derived using just high
school algebra starting from the assumptions that things are local and
things are realistic.

*> And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations.*

If that were true then the MWI and all other quantum interpretations must
be dead wrong because exparament has proven beyond doubt that Bell's
inequality is WRONG. The high school algebra used to derive it is not wrong
therefore one or more of the assumptions it is based on must be wrong. Many
Worlds predicts that Bell's Inequality would fail an experimental test
because Many Worlds does not assume realism.

> *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. *

If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the
polarization
of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always
exist in one and only one definite state.

John K Clark

--
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/CAJPayv0p-eN5hWeesk4ZUOefLtZuX_9E6JSWcEk76pmTMhCSpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Philip Thrift wrote:

> *how did the extra matter come from?*

Unlike the second law of thermodynamics which is based on logic and
observation the first law is based on observation alone, every time we test
it in a lab it seems to work, but it has never been tested at the very
largest scale, that of the cosmos. To answer your question the extra matter
comes from absolutely nothing and thus its true, Many Worlds violates the
law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that
regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories violate the conservation of
mass/energy,
they MUST. Noether's Theorem says if things generally look about the same
from one time period to another then matter/energy is conserved, but in our
expanding accelerating universe things do *NOT* look the same from one eon
to another so energy can't be completely conserved. Mass/energy is only
approximately conserved and to the same extent that at the largest scale
the universe looks approximately the same from one minute to the next.

And Einstein told us in the early 1920s that if empty space contains a
residual vacuum energy in the form of negative pressure (see below) it
would cause the universe to expand, that is to say more empty space would
be created which would contain more vacuum energy which would create more
empty space etc. If vacuum energy exists and has a value of 10^-10 joules
per cubic metre it would explain why our universe is expanding, One joule
is only enough energy to light up a one watt lightbulb for one second so
that's a very low energy density, but there is a lot of empty space and it
would be enough to get the job done.

Note: The vacuum energy density is constant because there is nothing
around that would cause it to change. And the pressure is negative because
if you had a cylinder of vacuum in your lab and you pulled out a piston
containing it that would create more vacuum and thus more resulting vacuum
energy would be created, and that energy must have come from the cylinder.
So if the vacuum wants to pull the piston in your lab back into the
cylinder then the pressure must be negative.

John K Clark

--
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/CAJPayv1zJ8-nYrGaaa5AO%3D0UQRKwki_jb536x54ScEz6x4jtiA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread Philip Thrift


David Wallace (philosopher of physics) here (short interview):
https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/55681

I have pretty much converged on the conclusion that *philosophy of physics* 
(not physics of course - in its *real* scientific practice) has nothing but 
confusion to offer, and is basically a wasteland of not even useful fiction.

@philipthrift


-- 
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/b823f322-e658-4506-a796-fc82d02d86ef%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-02 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/2019 4:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> You say the light carrying the
>>> information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the
>>> information; it's information encoded in the wave function of the
>>> environment.
>>
>>
>> That information encoded in the wave function of the environment has to
>> be coherent if the impossible branches are to cancel out. And that
>> coherence must originate in the measurement interactions that Alice and Bob
>> perform. And that is non-local, since Bob and Alice are space like
>> separated.
>>
>>
>> You're right.
>>
>
> You're conceding? I expected more of an argument.
>
>
> I thought about it some more.
>
> You couldn't scan the relevant section of Carroll's book and send it to
> me, could you? Please. I would like to see how Carroll attempts to get out
> of the non-locality issue.
>
>
> Carroll doesn't try to deny non-locality.  It's just that he draws a
> diagram such as Bruno suggests in which the results of Alice and Bob
> propagate futureward as waves of splitting which eventually overlap and the
> results can be compared.  Then he also draws the other diagram in which
> there is a space-like hypersurface thru Alice and Bob's measurement events
> (at the same time) and the universe splits then.  He says it doesn't matter
> which you use.
>

I don't really understand this. I would have to see the original text.

Wallace does something similar with the diagram in which the results
propagate along the forward light curve and the separate branches are
formed according to  the respective results. At least, he does this for the
simpler case of independent measurements by Alice and Bob on non-entangled,
independent spin states. Wallace clearly knows what would be required for a
satisfactory explanation of the branch splitting and the formation of a set
of joint results. He works through the independent case in detail,
explaining it in terms of a third observer, Carol, who sits between Alice
and Bob, and receives their results along the light cone. Carol receives
Alice's results first (she is slightly closer to Alice), and splits in two:
'Carol-who-sees-Alice-up', and 'Carol-who-sees-Alice-down'.

Then later, she receives Bob's results, and each branch splits again
according to Bob's results of 'up' or 'down'. Leading to four branches in
all. Wallace gives the weights, or probabilities, of these branches for
Carol correctly, in terms of the original states that Alice and Bob
measure, and the measurements they make. All of this is straightforward and
conventional.

But when he comes to analyse the case of entangled particles, he wimps out
from this sort of detail and mutters vague generalities about the "forward
propagation of the entanglement". My impression when I first read this was
that Wallace, fully knowing what a comprehensive account would entail,
intended to give a detailed analysis in the same form as he gave for the
non-entangled case, drawing attention to the similarities and difference
induced by the entanglement. But when he came to work this through, he
found that he could not produce any such transparent account. So he fell
back on vague generalities (as an admission of defeat!). Maybe I am
maligning the man, but these sections of his book do read rather oddly --
promising a lot more than is actually delivered.

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/CAFxXSLST5Yvuc2PB5yOmiucQBeJ-uUv-SSMfm7Ycdi9xjN7U5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/1/2019 4:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


You say the light carrying the
information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that
carries the
information; it's information encoded in the wave function of
the
environment.


That information encoded in the wave function of the environment
has to be coherent if the impossible branches are to cancel out.
And that coherence must originate in the measurement interactions
that Alice and Bob perform. And that is non-local, since Bob and
Alice are space like separated.


You're right.


You're conceding? I expected more of an argument.


I thought about it some more.



You couldn't scan the relevant section of Carroll's book and send it 
to me, could you? Please. I would like to see how Carroll attempts to 
get out of the non-locality issue.


Carroll doesn't try to deny non-locality.  It's just that he draws a 
diagram such as Bruno suggests in which the results of Alice and Bob 
propagate futureward as waves of splitting which eventually overlap and 
the results can be compared.  Then he also draws the other diagram in 
which there is a space-like hypersurface thru Alice and Bob's 
measurement events (at the same time) and the universe splits then.  He 
says it doesn't matter which you use.


Brent

--
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/20d3703f-4b44-e980-250b-46e46d637ede%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> You say the light carrying the
>> information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the
>> information; it's information encoded in the wave function of the
>> environment.
>
>
> That information encoded in the wave function of the environment has to be
> coherent if the impossible branches are to cancel out. And that coherence
> must originate in the measurement interactions that Alice and Bob perform.
> And that is non-local, since Bob and Alice are space like separated.
>
>
> You're right.
>

You're conceding? I expected more of an argument.

You couldn't scan the relevant section of Carroll's book and send it to me,
could you? Please. I would like to see how Carroll attempts to get out of
the non-locality issue.

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/CAFxXSLQb076CzUR34yhvcXWW0NyjLR0bcagvSjAi-%2B8JKy2eLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >*many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell
>> non-locality -- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the
>> Bell inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists*
>>
>
> MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must
> not only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they
> are not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is *not*
> realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is
> violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least
> one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3:
>
> 1) Realism
> 2) Superdeterminism
> 3) Locality
>
> Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe
> Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.
>

Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says.
Locality is certainly ruled out. Bell's result is a theorem, not a
conjecture. And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other
interpretations.
I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. But Einsteinian realism is
certainly false -- it is ruled out experimentally.

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/CAFxXSLSya17yDyxSJb_5e1gWb-XFWZ6UDkWLyv4dzWUWicWHig%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 19:24, Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>
>>  So, the best way to interpret the
>> multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes
>> exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one
>> parameter family of parallel worlds with the same information content.
>> In QM the information present in a world cannot in general be retrieved
>> from another world, in general one needs to consider superpositions of
>> different worlds.
>>
>> Saibal
>>
>
>
>
> That's the basic problem:
>
>   MW people believe in an informational (immaterial) reality, not a
> material reality.
>
> So when they look at an apple, whether whole or split in two, it's just
> information.
>
> Information can be multiplied without any cost: one can take a 0110 and
> make !001 (~0110) in addition, because 0s and 1s are immaterial, and there
> is no cost in making new information.
>
> But that is not the case with matter.
>

There are still the same conservation laws, regardless of the underlying
metaphysics; which is why it is metaphysics.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypXnLyQG54fZcJSKTx_j8bA3m8XeTiiZPD35dau08-PSLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until November. I would be interested to see if
he has a better account of Bell non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting":
decoherence is a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the like. This clearly
spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell
non-locality is that the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. Bruno and others
speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being associated with the splitting. But again,
entanglement is the result of physical interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a
result is not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a lot of loose thinking about this
"splitting" process.

The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with
aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by
destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light carrying
information from the space like separated measurements is not coherent, so it
can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing interference, then that
coherence itself would indicate non-locality.

But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum Darwinism,
is a physical interaction that writes the information into the environment. So
that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information spreads from Alice and
also separately from Bob. Where they overlap in the future they must correlate
per QM. Why can't we suppose that the inconsistent worlds cancel out. You say
the light carrying the information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light
that carries the information; it's information encoded in the wave function of
the environment. So no small part of the environment (like the light) is going
to appear coherent, but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite
result and zero out cross terms in the density matrix. That's essentially what
the mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.

Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the
start.

No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise
Bell's inequality couldn't be violated.

Brent

The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and we
see non locality only from a branch/term perspective. But without collapse, the
non locality does not involved neither FTL communication, nor any FTL influence
(which, for a realist on a unique world would be as much embarrassing). That is
why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a quasi-confimartion of the “other
histories” being as real as our’s.

Bruno

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
>  So, the best way to interpret the 
> multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes 
> exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one 
> parameter family of parallel worlds with the same information content. 
> In QM the information present in a world cannot in general be retrieved 
> from another world, in general one needs to consider superpositions of 
> different worlds. 
>
> Saibal 
>

That's the basic problem:

  MW people believe in an informational (immaterial) reality, not a 
material reality.

So when they look at an apple, whether whole or split in two, it's just 
information.

Information can be multiplied without any cost: one can take a 0110 and 
make !001 (~0110) in addition, because 0s and 1s are immaterial, and there 
is no cost in making new information.

But that is not the case with matter.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/0ddd8651-8af2-4645-8ebe-24ad75b4b06f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


You say the light carrying the
information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that
carries the
information; it's information encoded in the wave function of the
environment.


That information encoded in the wave function of the environment has 
to be coherent if the impossible branches are to cancel out. And that 
coherence must originate in the measurement interactions that Alice 
and Bob perform. And that is non-local, since Bob and Alice are space 
like separated.


You're right.

Brent

--
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/fac98e39-ce84-fff4-f0ec-ae68197ae557%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread smitra

On 01-10-2019 15:43, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 8:23:02 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

_many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell

non-locality -- giving a purely local explanation for violations
of the Bell inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of
MWI realists_

MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things
must not only exist but exist in one and only one definite state
even when they are not being observed; so whatever else it may be
Many Worlds is NOT realistic. And we know for a experimental fact
that Bell's inequality is violated, therefore simple algebra forces
us to conclude that at least one of the following things must be
wrong, perhaps all 3:

1) Realism
2) Superdeterminism
3) Locality

Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to
believe Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.

John K Clark

Many Worlds is ANTIMATERIALIST -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimaterialism - to the core:

There is a quantum chip in a computer that randomly produces a 0 or 1.
The computer is hooked to a small guillotine with an electrical switch
hooked to the computer. Under the blade is an apple. If a 0 is
produced ("world" A) , no signal is sent, but if 1 is produced, then
the blade chops the apple into 2 pieces ("world" B).

How much apple is there in A and B combined?

If enough for two apples, the how did the extra matter come from?
If there is the same amount of matter in A and B combined as A and A
alone, then is the 2 halves of the apple in B lying on the table also
one whole apple too?

Or you can interpret the alternate worlds in the same way as in block
time. So, if besides the present moment, the past and the future are
equally real (as suggested by relativity) then all the matter in the
universe that exists at the present moment also exist in the parallel
yesterday and tomorrow world. So, the best way to interpret the
multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes
exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one
parameter family of parallel worlds with the same information content.
In QM the information present in a world cannot in general be retrieved
from another world, in general one needs to consider superpositions of
different worlds.

Saibal

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 8:23:02 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> >*many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell 
>> non-locality -- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the 
>> Bell inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists*
>>
>
> MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must 
> not only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they 
> are not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is *not* 
> realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is 
> violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least 
> one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3:
>
> 1) Realism
> 2) Superdeterminism 
> 3) Locality
>
> Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe 
> Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.
>
> John K Clark
>
>

Many Worlds is *antimaterialist * - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimaterialism - to the core:

There is a quantum chip in a computer that randomly produces a 0 or 1. The 
computer is hooked to a small guillotine with an electrical switch hooked 
to the computer. Under the blade is an apple. If a 0 is produced ("world" 
A) , no signal is sent, but if 1 is produced, then the blade chops the 
apple into 2 pieces ("world" B).

How much apple is there in A and B combined?

If enough for two apples, the how did the extra matter come from?
If there is the same amount of matter in A and B combined as A and A alone, 
then is the 2 halves of the apple in B lying on the table also one whole 
apple too?

@philipthrift

-- 
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/c8b1a683-5a60-43da-b85b-fea91e0958a6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>*many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell
> non-locality -- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the
> Bell inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists*
>

MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must
not only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they
are not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is *not*
realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is
violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least one
of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3:

1) Realism
2) Superdeterminism
3) Locality

Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe
Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3TK_TBEUez4QsXhgP-KRNj3d85yc%2BmALRTrtUGQkQF2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>
> >> I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until
> November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell
> non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is
> a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the
> like. This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting
> is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that
> the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence.
> Bruno and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being associated
> with the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of physical
> interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a result is
> not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a lot of
> loose thinking about this "splitting" process.
> >>
> >> The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up
> with aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by
> destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light
> carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not
> coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing
> interference, then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
> >
> > But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum
> Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the
> environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information
> spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the
> future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the
> inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information
> isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information;
> it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no
> small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent,
> but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero
> out cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the
> mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.
>
> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the
> start.


How? The wave function itself is non-local.


> The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and
> we see non locality only from a branch/term perspective.


But every branch in the Everettian picture shows non-locality. Where do the
other branches make each branch actually local? You are still not
explaining anything.


> But without collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL
> communication, nor any FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique
> world would be as much embarrassing).


Neither collapse nor FTL are the issue. We can agree that there is no FTL
action because that would amount to a local explanation -- the FTL exchange
would interact locally at each end. The effect is non-local because the
non-separable wave function is  intrinsically non-local. Lorentz invariance
is intact because of the no signalling theorems.

That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a quasi-confimartion of
> the “other histories” being as real as our’s.
>

As I said, the thought that Bell might be local in many worlds was really
the last hope for MWI being of any use. But all attempts to demonstrate
this have failed. The sort of mumbo jumbo you offer here is no better than
Wallace's obscurantism.

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/CAFxXSLSPvk7vU6VHVx2ghaYPL%3Dpg1Vz4xhsccRfRxgOvyfNvwA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> 
>> I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until 
>> November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell 
>> non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is a 
>> local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the like. 
>> This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting is not 
>> really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that the 
>> splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. Bruno 
>> and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being associated with 
>> the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of physical 
>> interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a result is 
>> not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a lot of loose 
>> thinking about this "splitting" process.
>> 
>> The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with 
>> aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by 
>> destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light 
>> carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not 
>> coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing interference, 
>> then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
> 
> But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum 
> Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the 
> environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information 
> spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the 
> future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the 
> inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information 
> isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; 
> it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no 
> small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent, 
> but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero out 
> cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the mathematical 
> process of taking the reduced trace does.

Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
start. The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, 
and we see non locality only from a branch/term perspective. But without 
collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL communication, nor any 
FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique world would be as much 
embarrassing). That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a 
quasi-confimartion of the “other histories” being as real as our’s.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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/82e40b4e-7a51-c2c7-2b37-2fbb5923e9b4%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/46A18587-FB7A-45E5-9D26-3AB25055385C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-01 Thread Philip Thrift

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:53:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
>  In the case of *Everett'*s relative state, it suggested decoherence and 
> *quantum 
> Darwinism *which I think have gone a long way to answering the questions 
> of preferred pointer states and the Heisenberg cut.
>
> Brent
>

I don't know specifically about Zizek QD, but for Everett's MWI I just 
haven't seen anything in computational methods/programming of applying 
quantum theory to actual problems (as is done in computational quantum 
mechanics, a branch of computational physics) that uses any specifically 
MWI concepts. (No one has provided a reference. If not, then MWI is just 
good for telling fairy tales.) So that MWI has "gone a long way to 
answering the questions" about *anything* quantum seems doubtful. (Do 
physicists really think that it does?) 

Sean Carroll's book tour seems like a disaster for physics to me.

@phiipthrift

-- 
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/6458cf60-beab-4410-a17a-5caf07f594dd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is