On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:38 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2019, at 13:03, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the >> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world >> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice >> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance. >> >> > OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a > local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will > suffice at this point. > > > Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to >> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin >> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the >> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI. >> > > The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no > non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just > answer the question. > > > Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. >> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still >> have not come up with any credible explanation. >> >> >> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in Tipler’s paper, and it is >> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach. >> > > And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not > successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just > reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced > that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the > Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on > what, exactly, we are talking about. > > > > When Alice and Bob are separated, even from just one centimetre, then it > makes no sense to claim that they are in the same world. > Now you are just talking nonsense, Bruno. You are trying to remove all sense from the idea of a semi-classical world. By doing this, you remove any possibility for your physics to actually describe our everyday experience. Do you not meet your wife every morning? Alice and Bob can a priori find non correlated results, but they will met > only their corresponding Alices and Bobs. > OK. So prove it. Show me, in detail, how it is that non-correlated branches can exist, but Alice and Bob never experience them. What might that mean? All Alices meet some Bob or other, and vice versa. There are no unmatched persons, floating in unmatched 'worlds'. The “fully local explanation” is known by everybody: it is the Schroedinger > equation. If you simulate the SWE of the system Bob+Alice + their > particles, on a computer, and you interview the majority of Alice and Bob, > who met after the experiments, they will agree on the correlation, and on > the violation of Bell’s inequality, despite we know that everything was > local, indeed simulated by a Babbage machine. > It is well known that you cannot simulate Bell inequality violating statistics on a computer without actually simulating the non-local state, and using quantum mechanics. But when we do this, we can see explicitly that the correlations originate in the non-local features of the quantum state. The Schroedinger equation describes local unitary evolution, but when applied to a non-local state -- a state that refers explicitly to two non-separable spacetime locations -- then the results are non-local. The SE does not eliminate the non-locality inherent in the quantum state. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRziFSFpv%2BxXUqVD3%2B1HURxg_fty%3DtiNcvftZMOG%3Dfu3g%40mail.gmail.com.
