On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you >> choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the >> infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And >> that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations >> the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one >> exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.* > > *>No,* > *Yes!* * > it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split into > orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have "weights" or > "numbers" implementing the Born rule,* > *Please name a change that is NOT "very special", a change in which Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a probability of occurrence, even in principle. * >* everything in each world is the same except things that depend on the > measurement result.* > *The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that don't depend on measurement results will not change because if they did then they would depend on measurement results. * > > *"measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)* > *Exactly, but ..... of measurement you just said "it's a very special kind of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you about putting "measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the only quantum Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning. * > *> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each > one causes the world to split.* > *Exactly! So I forget, what are we arguing about? * *> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world splits > instantaneously or at the speed of light.* > *Many Worlds makes no prediction about that because it makes no observable difference, you are free to assume that the split is instantaneous or that it propagates at the speed of light. * *> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories > were right* *Bell thought NON-LOCAL hidden variable theories were right, that's why he was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and deterministic but non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same reason that Roger Penrose does, they both thought that the very idea of the universe splitting is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth considering; but they both forgot that being very strange and being logically self-contradictory are not the same thing. I think if Many Worlds is untrue then something even stranger is. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* btw > > > > *To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many > Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective > collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that > makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second > extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that > does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. > You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an > inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some > have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory. * > > *S**o why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the > 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of > them logical. * > > *1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. > Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the > universe is infinite. * > > *2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is > similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving > because I don't feel myself moving. * > > >> *>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either >> possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be >> both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the >> spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by >> the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the >> quantum wave demands that. * >> >> >> *> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled >> pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite >> directions, far beyond causal distance.* >> > > *You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing > filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure > spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are > easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. * > > *If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 > billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and > set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I > choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% > chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you > arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. > If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the > other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for > example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then > there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; > this is because [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).* > > * > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived* > > > *I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. Basically I showed > that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, > which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the > quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain > correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those > correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum > world cannot be due to local hidden variables. * > > * > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances >> exceeding causality. * > > > *I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence > can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence > "information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph > would still be impossible. * > > > eeb > > t > > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0p6jA0ENzxvPypecMAt2Ux3g5n6fYybw0QmYGsKgGQjw%40mail.gmail.com.
