On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if what >> you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong. >> > > > Explain why the following table shows that MWI is local, and realistic > on the wave function and universal wave function: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations > I have no idea where Wikipedia got that table but it is self contradictory. It says the observer plays no part in many worlds but it also says "no" to counterfactual definiteness meaning you can't speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been observed. Both those things can't be right. And in many world there is no unique future but it says there is no unique past, and that's not what the theory says. >>that's not what physicists mean when they use the word "realistic", they >> mean that a wave or a particle possesses one specific attribute even if it >> has not been measured. >> > > > That is hidden variable. > That is realism. Hidden variables are about how something is going to change, realism is about how something is right now. > There cannot be a single hidden value but there can be multiple real > values. > I don't know what you mean by that. The best way to think of hidden variables is as a lookup table that photons and electrons can see but for some reason we can not. The table can contain as many real values as you like, it can even contain an infinite number of values; but no lookup table, no set of hidden variables, can explain the results we see from experiment. >>For example, if a photon already has one specific polarization even >> before its quantum entangled twin has been measured then it is realistic. >> > > > It has many specific polarizations before it is measured. > Then it is observer dependent, and the crown jewel of the MWI is that it's observer independent and solves the measurement problem. The MWI may have other difficulties but at least it solves the measurement problem, without that WMI has no advantage and you might as well stick with the Copenhagen muddle. > See the answer to Question 12: > http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html > It says "the splitting is a local process, transmitted causally at light or sub-light speeds", so the question is, transmitted THROUGH WHAT at light or sub-light speeds? I don't know but it certainly isn't through local space. > >> >>> It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to. >>> >> >> >> It most certainly does! If a event is not even in our past or future >> spacetime lightcone then it is not local, and no event in another universe >> is within our lightcone. >> > > > By this definition, the existence of light cones or things outside would > make special relativity non-local, > No it does not because non-local events, that is to say things outside our past or future lightcone may exist but they have no effect on what we see here and now nor can anything that happens here effect anything there. > A theory is only non-local if something outside your past light cone > could affect you, or if you could affect things outside your future light > cone. > Exactly. > > This is not the case in special relativity, > Exactly. So how is it non-local? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
