On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:02:05 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not exist, >>>>> and have never existed. This notion seems to be important to your idea, >>>>> and >>>>> I can assure you that you are wrong about this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How could that be possible? You suppress the infinities of Alice and >>>>> Bob only because you know in advance what is the direction in which Alice >>>>> will make her measurement. What if she changes her mind? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Right. >>>> >>>> I would like Bruce to consider the case Alice measures alternately x >>>> and z spin axes of an electron 1000 times and interprets those measurement >>>> results as binary digits following a decimal point to define the real >>>> number to which she will set her measurement angle to (before she measures >>>> her entangled particle). >>>> >>>> Certainly in the no-collapse case there would be at least 2^1000 Alices >>>> who perform the measurement at each of the possible measurement angles >>>> that >>>> can be defined by 1000 binary digits. What I wonder is how many Alices >>>> Bruce would believe to exist in this scenario before she measures her >>>> entangled particle. >>>> >>>> >>>> How do 2^1000 copies of Alice make any difference? Each measures the >>>> entangled particles only once. Besides, This is not what is done. I see >>>> little point in making up alternative scenarios -- why not explain the >>>> straightforward original scenario? Imaginary copies are beside the point. >>>> >>>> If you cannot focus your attention on the original scenario, I see >>>> little point in your trying to do physics. >>>> >>> >>> I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one >>> Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one >>> and the same branch" prior to measurement. But normal QM without collapse >>> would say Alice and Bob are branching all the time, even before they >>> measure their entangled pair. >>> >> >> >> *They're branching all the time prior to measurement, that is without >> collapse? Pretty fantastic. Where, how, is this affirmed by QM? AG* >> > > Collapse is not part of the formalism of QM, >
*It is. The collapse postulate states that after the measurement of some eigenvalue, the system, originally in a superposition, evolves immediately into the eigenstate of the eigenvalue which has been measured. AG * so "branching all the time" is what it affirms. > *What is branching? Indeed, that is what is NOT part of the formalism IMO. AG* > That is the whole point of no-collapse interpretations. > > > -- > 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 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.
