On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:52 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 10:41 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > *Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.* >> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics >>> >>> >>" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett >>> interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the unitary >>> part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can generate correlations >>> that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't satisfy the implicit >>> assumption that Bell made that measurements have a single outcome. In fact, >>> Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds framework from the >>> assumption that a measurement has a single outcome. Therefore a violation >>> of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that >>> measurements have multiple outcomes*." >>> >> >> > What a remarkably silly argument. >> > > I agree that, if not silly, it is at least a poor choice of words to say > "Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds" because, given the > assumptions that Bell made, his theorem can be proven with high school > algebra alone. If Bell's assumptions are correct then it would be logically > impossible for his inequality to be violated. But experiment shows that > Bell's inequality *IS* violated. Therefore AT LEAST one of his > assumptions must be untrue. They are: > > *1*) Determination; everything has a cause, > *2*) Locality; two things can't influence each other instantly and > without influencing anything in between and without being diminished by > distance. > *3*) Realistic: Wikipedia correctly describes it as "the implicit > assumption that Bell made that measurements have a single outcome". This is > the one you have so much difficulty comprehending. > > Any quantum interpretation that has all 3 of the above qualities is > inconsistent with experiment and observation and therefore has dropped out > of the horse race. The survivors include the Pilot Wave and Transactional > interpretations which are deterministic and realistic but not local, and > Many Worlds which is deterministic and local but not realistic. I don't > think Copenhagen or QBism are really quantum interpretations at all, they > are more a command than an interpretation, they tell us to just shut up and > calculate. > > Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory is also not an interpretation but > instead postulates new laws of physics and significantly modifies > Schrodinger's Equation so the quantum wave collapse is objectively real. > DRW is local and realistic but not deterministic. The trouble with it is, > there is no experimental evidence it's true, the new equation is far more > difficult to solve than Schrodinger's Equation which is already hard > enough, and nobody has been able to do what Dirac did for Schrödinger as > far back as 1927, make GRW's modified equation consistent with Special > Relativity. > > And then of course there is Superdeterminism, it's deterministic > (obviously), local. and realistic, but its astronomical violation of > Occam's razor renders it, not just silly but, silly^(a silly power). > So you can provide the long-sought local explanation of the violation of the Bell inequalities, can you? In terms of many worlds, or any other theory you choose. That is interesting, because Saibal is not able to do this. Neither is anyone else on this email list. And I am quite confident that this is because no such local explanation of these correlations is possible, since the situation is intrinsically non-local. 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/CAFxXSLSay8w-fw5us-Ds63qmJ66WpGP-EWRNdH-Q-WneMbc%2BiA%40mail.gmail.com.
