On 07 Jun 2017, at 04:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2017 5:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Here I found a not too bad paper on this subtle subject:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3827.pdf
He do the calculus that different people have done sometimes. I
mainly agree with it, but read it quickly.
His notation is somewhat difficult to follow. But it is instructive
that footnote 36 comments that his treatment follows that of Price
in the Everett FAQ. Since that derivation has been shown to assume
non-locality "by the back door",
This is what you should elaborate on. I don't see that "non-locality"
at all.
it follows that Baylock's derivation is equally flawed. Besides,
Baylock does not actually derive the full result -- he omits to
explicitly mention the step where Price assumes what amounts to a
non-local influence. Baylock's equation 6, where he gets the 4
possible combinations of results for the two experimenters, omits to
calculate the relative probabilities of these sets of results, and
it is those probabilities that can only be determined non-locally.
In each branch. But that is the "no-locality" which does not need an
influence at a distance.
His discussion of counterfactual definiteness, and of its violation
in MWI, is also flawed. He does not demonstrate that Bell actually
uses CFD -- his treatment of CFD considers separate sequences of
measurements, and then compares them. His criticism is that one of
the sequences was not actually performed, so it cannot be assumed to
give the QM result (could violate CFD).
But that is an entirely contrived situation. If you look at the
original experimental papers, what Freedman and Clauser, Clauser,
and Aspect et al., actually do is measure coincidence rates at
various randomly set polarizer angles. They then compare coincidence
rates at different angles -- they never use results from angles that
were not actually measured! So whether CFD is true or not is totally
irrelevant for the experiments.
In each branch!
They find violations of the relative coincidence rates expected if
locality is assumed: CFD does not come into it; their results agree
with QM at all relative angles.
As expected. The CFD is only use to get the action-at-a-distance.
Without the CFD, we get non-locality, but without a physical action at
a distance.
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.
