On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Your claim appears to be that Bell's theorem is not valid in MWI.
Bell's theorem is valid. His inequality does not even assume QM,
but just locality.
I agree, but that is not what you were implying above. It seems
that now you agree that the Bell inequalities assume only locality.
And a mono-universe, or a conservation of identity of Alice and Bob
from the beginning to the end of the experience. But that is no more
the case in the MWI. Everett explains already this when he introduces
what will be called decoherence. Decpherence is local.
But these inequalities are violated by experiment.
Yes.
That can only mean that the assumption of locality was wrong --
whatever interpretation of QM you adopt.
It means that locality and mono-universe cannot be maintained at once.
But non-locality is not proved, unless you believe that Alice and Bob
remains the same unique person all along, which is necessarlly not the
case in the MWI of the EPR-Bell situation.
I think that this important part of recent exchanges might have got
lost in the welter of to-and-fro.
Bruno accepts:
1. Bell's theorem (and the associated inequalities) are valid in MWI.
2. Bell's theorem assumes only locality (not even QM -- it is valid
in classical physics also).
Locality, and identity preservation (or mono-universe, or
counterfactual definiteness: all go away with Everett).
3. The Aspect et al., and subsequent, experiments demonstrate that
the Bell inequalities are violated.
Yes, but only from the points of view of one branch. But when we look
how the singlet state is handled in the MWI, the correlation are
apparent, but the results obtained by space-separated person does not
need to be correlated, in some absolute sense, they need to be
correlated with anyone interacting with both of them later, so that in
all branches, it will look like if there has been an action at a
distance, but all influence and information flows, and splitting, go
at a speed lower than light.
It seems to follow with the force of simple logic that:
4. Experiment shows that QM is non-local, even in MWI.
Bruno appears to reject this conclusion. I conclude that Bruno's
position is incoherent.
I will again ask you to tell me what is wrong with Michael Clive Price
explanation ... except that the web page is not available.
I am not alone skeptical about inferring that the violation of the
Bell inequalities shows action at a distance. What is wrong in Deutsch
and Hayden? What is wrong in Rubin (Rubin, M.A. Found Phys Lett (2001)
14: 301. doi:10.1023/A:1012357515678), or in Maudlin's book?
It seems obvious that both Bell and EPR assumes the identity of the
observers, who prepare the singlet state and measure the correlation,
but this is simply made false in the MWI.
I have to go.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
