On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 2:05 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/8/2025 4:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 3:42 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> AG, >> >> The key difference is that in MWI, all possible settings and outcomes >> actually happen in different branches. Nothing selects just one in advance. >> >> So yes, everything evolves deterministically, including the >> experimenters, but there's no global constraint forcing a single outcome to >> match hidden variables. >> >> In superdeterminism, only one setting and one outcome ever happen, and >> they're pre-correlated to fake the quantum violation. >> >> MWI doesn't need that. It just lets every allowed outcome unfold, no >> conspiracy required. >> > > But MWI still can't account for correlations that violate the Bell > inequalities. > > Bruce > > > Why do you say that, Bruce? The standard story is that the two entangled > particles share a single variable in Hilbert space and that's why one > measurement determines both variables. I think that makes the Hilbert > space epistemic, rather than ontic as the MWI advocates would have it. > I just look at the two-particle correlations. If Alice gets UP, what is the probability that Bob gets UP. In MWI all possibilities are realized for Bob, so on the branch that Bob gets UP the probability is one, and on the branch where Bob gets DOWN, the probability of UP-UP is zero Whereas, in quantum mechanics, the probability of Alice and Bob both getting UP depends on the angle between their SG magnets. It is a probabilistic relationship, and MWI cannot reproduce this. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLToLD-UnqO_MyAgcqRhOF6VaK8v29gndZdZsg4AjbEcEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
