Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

The short answer is yes, Many Worlds is falsifiable. For example, right now there are experiments underway in an attempt to prove that the GRW theory of objective quantum wave collapse makes predictions that Many Worlds does not, if they are successful it will prove that Everett was dead wrong, it's as simple as that.  GRW claims that Schrodinger's equation is incomplete and that another very complex term needs to be added to it because it's the only way they could think of to get rid of all those worlds that for some reason they dislike, there was simply no other reason to add that extra term. With this new term Schrodinger's equation is no longer completely deterministic because a random element is added such that the larger the wave function is (the more particles it has) the more likely the quantum wave function will objectively collapse. They carefully tuned their very complex extra term inserted into Schrödinger's equation in just such a way that, because an individual electron is so small the probability of you being able to observe one objectively collapse is almost but not quite zero; but the probability of you NOT observing something as large as a baseball NOT collapsing is also almost, but not quite, zero. Despite heroic efforts. up to the present day nobody has found a speck of experimental evidence in support of the GRW theory of objective quantum wave collapse, and until and unless they do Many Worlds must be the preferred theory according to Occam's razor because it makes fewer assumptions, it has no need to complicate matters by adding that extra term to Schrodinger's equation.  

But GRW is not the only or even the most popular competitor to Many Worlds, that honor would have to go to the Copenhagen interpretation, and there is certainly no way to falsify that, but back in 1986 in his book "The Ghost in the Atom" David Deutsch proposed another way to falsify Everett's Many Worlds; the experiment would be difficult to perform but Deutsch argues that is not Many Worlds fault, the reason it's so difficult is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum properties.

In Deutsch's experiment, to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds other than this one, a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal plate that has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer has detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. The quantum mind now signs a document for each and every electron saying it has observed the electron and knows which slit it went through. It is very important that the document does NOT say which slit the electron went through, it only says that it went through one and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. Now just before the electron hits the plate the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the memory of what slits the electrons went through, but all other memories including all the documents remain undamaged. After the document is signed the electron continues on its way and hits the photographic plate. Then after thousands of electrons have been observed and all which-way information has been erased, develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional interpretation is correct.

Deutsch is saying that in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one universe when the electrons hit the photographic film because the two universes will no longer be different (even though they had different histories), but their influence will still be felt. In the merged universe you'll see indications that the electron went through slot X only and indications that it went through slot Y only, and that's what causes interference.

I know that what I said in the above is a fair representation of what Deutsch was saying because some years ago I wrote to him about this and he said it was an accurate paraphrase.

It must be admitted that like every theory Many Worlds makes predictions that cannot be tested, but a theory is not judged on the basis of what predictions it makes that have neither been confirmed nor falsified experimentally,  instead they are judged by how well they conform to experiments that HAVE been performed, and in Many Worlds  case it conforms to every physics experiment that has ever been made up to the present day. Yes Everett's idea produces a lot of worlds, but Occam does NOT say the best theory is the one that produces the simplest outcome, the best theory is the one that makes the fewest assumptions and still agrees with experimental observations. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

fwm

[Bruce Kellett]

The many worlds idea has already been falsified because it cannot account for the observed violation of the Bell inequalities for entangled particles. MWI is supposedly a local theory -- where is the local account of the correlations  of entangled particles?

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3u585mWchs4ZYhrB5_2%3Di9VjhNZB-6VK7t%2BZNShDvFYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[smitra]

There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you
then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.
Locality then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory is
manifestly local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions and
observers are part of this dynamics. Although observer are not
explicitly treated as being part of the wavefunction that describes the
entire system, the assumption is that in principle, this is the case. In
practice, one can then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.

John points out the thought experiments by Deutsch makes it clear that
the usual QM formalism will not work in certain cases, that will then
falsify the ad hoc collapse postulate. If you then believe that MWI
cannot account for violation of Bell's inequalities while ordinary QM
can, then that begs the question of how removing the FAPP unobservable
sectors where all other outcomes are realized, could matter at all.

Saibal

>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

>> fwm
>>
>> --
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3u585mWchs4ZYhrB5_2%3Di9VjhNZB-6VK7t%2BZNShDvFYA%40mail.gmail.com

>> [2].

>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR9Mj%2BXgV%2Bus%3Du5F8xOY1BggPGXApHZBM5rd3WTsis%3DVw%40mail.gmail.com
> [3].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3u585mWchs4ZYhrB5_2%3Di9VjhNZB-6VK7t%2BZNShDvFYA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> [3]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR9Mj%2BXgV%2Bus%3Du5F8xOY1BggPGXApHZBM5rd3WTsis%3DVw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you
then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.
Locality then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory is
manifestly local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions and
observers are part of this dynamics. Although observer are not
explicitly treated as being part of the wavefunction that describes the
entire system, the assumption is that in principle, this is the case. In
practice, one can then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.

That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of the Bell inequalities. You merely claim that the local theory is such an account, but you do not spell it out.

We have had this discussion before, and you couldn't give the detailed local account then either. Bell'e theorem applies in Everettian quantum mechanics in exactly the same way as it applies in one-world accounts. Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no local account is possible in any interpretation of QM.

John points out the thought experiments by Deutsch makes it clear that
the usual QM formalism will not work in certain cases, that will then
falsify the ad hoc collapse postulate. If you then believe that MWI
cannot account for violation of Bell's inequalities while ordinary QM
can, then that begs the question of how removing the FAPP unobservable
sectors where all other outcomes are realized, could matter at all.

The other sectors are not just FAPP unoservable, they are not observable in principle. How could the presence of unobservable fairy tales affect anything at all? The standard account of violations of the Bell inequalities in quantum mechanics relies on the notion of non-locality. And since the effect is non-local, no local account is possible.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:09 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you
then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.
Locality then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory is
manifestly local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions and
observers are part of this dynamics. Although observer are not
explicitly treated as being part of the wavefunction that describes the
entire system, the assumption is that in principle, this is the case. In
practice, one can then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.

> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of the Bell inequalities.

Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally shown to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local. 

>  Bell'e theorem applies in Everettian quantum mechanics in exactly the same way as it applies in one-world accounts.

Bell's Inequality applies to everything, even if Quantum Mechanics were someday proved to be wrong Bell's theorem would still be valid. Bell didn't need Quantum Mechanics to derive his inequality, he just needed logic and high school algebra.  So even if  someday something supplanted Quantum Mechanics that new theory would still have to conform to the fact that Bell's Inequality is violated.

>Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no local account is possible in any interpretation of QM.

Exactly. And "local" means there is a limit on how fast information can be transmitted, and that limit is the speed of light. Many Worlds is completely consistent with that, in it there is no way you can send a signal faster than light.

 > The other sectors are not just FAPP unoservable, they are not observable in principle.

Hugh Everett didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, gee it would be cool if there were a lot of different universes, I think I'll invent a theory that has an infinite number of them. Instead he asked himself what would happen if he took Schrodinger's Equation seriously and assumed it really meant what it said, and when he did that those other universes just popped up. The only way to get rid of them is to change Schrodinger's equation as GRW has done, or to do what Copenhagen has done and say that for some vaguely defined reason a vaguely defined thing called an "observer" doesn't need to obey Schrodinger's Equation.  Many Worlds is just bare bones, no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with no silly bells and whistles pasted on. The only assumption Many Worlds makes is that the mathematics means what it says.

Many Worlds logically explains a lot of stuff that seems bizarre to us, yes it makes some predictions that can't be proven but it is hardly alone in that. For example: we can't see things further away than 13.8 billion light years because there hasn't been enough time for light to reach us, and it's near as we can tell on the largest scale space is flat, if there is any curvature at all it must be less than 0.4% so you'd need to go over 200 times 13.8 billion light years to form an unbounded sphere; so do you really believe that there is nothing beyond 13.8 billion light years? If you do then you must also believe the Earth really is the center of the universe and 13.8 billion light years away there is a wall with absolutely positively NOTHING on the other side. Do you believe that? If not why not?

> How could the presence of unobservable fairy tales affect anything at all?

 

But those "unobservable fairy tales" ARE observable, they are even observable by Bruce Kellett, they are just not observable by you, with "you"  defined as the person I'm talking to at this instant.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bft

 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 9:12 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:09 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you
then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.
Locality then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory is
manifestly local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions and
observers are part of this dynamics. Although observer are not
explicitly treated as being part of the wavefunction that describes the
entire system, the assumption is that in principle, this is the case. In
practice, one can then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.

> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of the Bell inequalities.

Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally shown to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local.

But the argument was that many worlds was an entirely local theory: in other words, that it gives a local account of the violation of the Bell inequalities. It seems from what you say that you agree that Bell's theorem proves that no local account of the experimental results for correlations of entangled particles is possible. I agree. But that is not what is claimed by Saibal and other advocates of MWI: they claim to have a local account of these results.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally shown to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local.

> But the argument was that many worlds was an entirely local theory: in other words, that it gives a local account of the violation of the Bell inequalities.

Well that isn't my argument!

 

> it seems from what you say that you agree that Bell's theorem proves that no local account of the experimental results for correlations of entangled particles is possible. I agree.

 Bell's theorem proves that no REALISTIC local account can explain the experimental fact that Bell's Inequality is violated.  

 

> But that is not what is claimed by Saibal and other advocates of MWI:

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that no theory that is both realistic and local can be right. I think Many Worlds is local because you cannot send information faster than light in that theory, apparently you disagree and for some reason think Many Worlds is non-local, but as far as this discussion is concerned it doesn't matter which of us is right because Many Worlds is NOT a realistic theory. "Realistic" means that unobserved things exist in one and only one definite state, and that is most certainly not what Many Worlds says.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rmu

iyd

[Bruce Kellett]

OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both ways -- Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that it is local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both ways -- Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that it is local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

 

"Realism" has EVERYTHING to do with it, and I spelled out exactly why in a post on May 4 2022 when somebody said they wanted to hear all the gory details and this is what I said:

==

" If you want all the details this is going to be a long post, you asked for it. First I'm gonna have to show that any theory (except for superdeterminism which is idiotic) that is deterministic, local and realistic cannot possibly explain the violation of Bell's Inequality that we see in our experiments, and then show why a theory like Many Worlds which is deterministic and local but NOT realistic can.

The hidden variable concept was Einstein's idea, he thought there was a local reason all events happened, even quantum mechanical events, but we just can't see what they are. It was a reasonable guess at the time but today experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong, to do that I'm gonna illustrate some of the details of Bell's inequality with an example.

When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists like Einstein who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something equivalent to a look-up table inside the photon that for one reason or another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can not.

Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument is still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it and can be derived with high school algebra; his point was that any successful theory about how the world works must explain why his inequality is violated, and today we know for a fact from experiments that it is indeed violated. Nature just refuses to be sensible and doesn't work the way you'd think it should.            

I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and recording them as a look-up table in the box. Now the box would know which light to flash.

I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes. This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes. 

The set of boxes has another property, if the switches on the 2 boxes are set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, there is a total negative correlation; when one flashes red the other box flashes blue and when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes it all the easier to make the boxes because now you only need to pre-calculate 3 random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 to 1 to get the other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes.

The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if the rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the other box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different 1 time in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, I could change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock look-up table (hidden variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 in 4 of the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the 4 o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box set at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by 1 flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2 flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3 flashes in 4.

BUT I said before that boxes with opposite settings should have a 100% anti-correlation, the flashes on the box set at 12 o'clock should differ from the box set at 6 o'clock by 4 flashes in 4 NOT 3 flashes in 4. Thus if the boxes work by hidden variables then when one is set to 12 o'clock and the other to 2 there MUST be a 2/3 correlation, at 4 a 1/3 correlation, and of course at 6 no correlation at all.  A correlation greater than 2/3, such as 3/4, for adjacent settings produces paradoxes, at least it would if you expected everything to work mechanistically because of some local hidden variable involved.

Does this mean it's impossible to make two boxes that have those specifications? Nope, but it does mean hidden variables can not be involved and that means something very weird is going on. Actually it would be quite easy to make a couple of boxes that behave like that, it's just not easy to understand how that could be. 

Photons behave in just this spooky manner, so to make the boxes all you need it 4 things:

1) A glorified light bulb, something that will make two photons of unspecified but identical polarizations moving in opposite directions so you can send one to each box. An excited calcium atom would do the trick, or you could turn a green photon into two identical lower energy red photons with a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate.

2) A light detector sensitive enough to observe just one photon. Incidentally the human eye is not quite good enough to do that but frogs can, for frogs when light gets very weak it must stop getting dimmer and appear to flash instead. 

3) A polarizing filter, we've had these for well over a century.

4) Some gears and pulleys so that each time the rotary switch is advanced one position the filter is advanced by 30 degrees. This is because it's been known for many years that the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it through a polarizing filter set at X is [COS (x)]^2; and if X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians) then the value is .75; if the light is so dim that only one photon is sent at a time then that translates to the probability that any individual photon will make it through the filter is 75%.

The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special about a specific photon, some internal difference, some hidden local variable that determines if it makes it through a filter or not. Thus if we ignore a superdeterministic conspiracy, as we should, then at least one of two things MUST be true:

1) The universe is not realistic, that is, things do NOT exist in one and only one state both before and after they are observed. In the case of Many Worlds it means the very look up table as described in the above cannot be printed in indelible ink but, because Many Worlds assumes that Schrodinger's Equation means what it says, the look up table itself not only can but must exist in many different versions both before and after a measurement is made.

2) The universe is non-local, that is, everything influences everything else and does so without regard for the distances involved or amount of time involved or even if the events happen in the past or the future; the future could influence the past. But because Many Worlds is non-realistic, and thus doesn't have a static lookup table, it has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain experimental results."

==

Back in 2022 in response to my post in the above you complained that it was too long and detailed even though previously you had complained that my explanation was too short and lacked detail. And I have no doubt that today you will complain that my explanation was still too long and detailed.  And then, ignoring the fact that Many Worlds does NOT say everything happens it says everything PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE  happens,  you complained that in my example I failed to include instances where 2 polarizers oriented oriented in opposite directions produced  up-up and down-down, and this is what I said: 

==

"NO, up-up and down-down is never allowed! If I set my polarizer in the "up" alignment (and I am free to pick any direction I like and call it "up") and a undetermined photon makes it through then then I know with 100% certainty that my photon is now polarized "up", and I know for a fact that if you set your polarizer to the corresponding "down" position then there is a 100% chance the brother photon that is entangled with mine will make it through your polarizer and a 0% probability it will not. Set the polarizers to any angle you like but you will NEVER ever ever see up-up or down-down.  

If instead of orienting your filter in the "down" position you only misaligned it from mine by 30° then is a 75% chance the photon will make it through your polarizer, if it does then you know with certainty that your photon is now, not in the "up" direction, but in a direction 30° from "up". And you know one other thing, you know that your photon and mine are no longer entangled because misaligned polarizers destroy entanglement.  By the way, I use quotation marks because "up" and "down" are completely arbitrary directions, as long as consistency is maintained between what is called "up" and "down" any direction can be chosen"

==

If  you have complaints about anything I've said in the above, which I'm sure you will, feel free to say so, but please don't complain that my explanations are too short and lack detail, and then complain that they're too long and have too much detail. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2md

[Jason Resch]

I think it may be possible actually, to use a mathematical argument to disprove superdeterminism, in a manner similar to how Bell disproved theories that are local, real, and counterfactually definite.

The method would show that there is a necessary underdetermination that can happen, when a small number of measurement results are gathered, and then used to feed back into the polarizing settings for a much larger number of subsequent measurements. If the universe is completely deterministic, as superdeterminism proposes, there should be a point at which the correlations must fail, as there are not enough ways a single (or small number of) facts can determine a much larger, potentially infinite, number of following facts.

As an example, take the first 128 measurements from a Bell type experiment, and use the measured values to determine the 128-bits of an encryption key. Use that key to initialize a cipher (which can be viewed as a seed to a pseudo random number generator), which has a period of 2^128. That is, this cipher (or pseudo random number generator), will output a deterministic sequence of bits that is on the order of 2^128 bits long. Use these output bits to determine the settings of how to set the angle of the polarizing filter in an iterated Bell/EPR test.

According to Superdeterminism, everything measured was pre-determined to have the measurement results. However, in this case, it's not feasible for 128 measurements, to mathematically, contain enough information and variation to also determine and the subsequent 2^128 outcomes. The 2^128 outcomes are mathematically underdetermined by 128 prior measurements, and so the system cannot be deterministic in the way superdeterminism proposes.

Jason

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0YM7ggWnSdSKmQgsbCSgn%3DVJ3sM71QWXGjM%3DC1Kwe1aA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it may be possible actually, to use a mathematical argument to disprove superdeterminism

I'm not sure a mathematical proof that superdeterminism is not true is even necessary because a greater violation of Occam's Razor is quite literally impossible to imagine.  

> it's not feasible for 128 measurements, to mathematically, contain enough information and variation to also determine and the subsequent 2^128 outcomes.

 

128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and that would produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and looks completely random, 31415926535 897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ....., because that particular infinite series converges to the transcendental number π.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

isc

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 9:16 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it may be possible actually, to use a mathematical argument to disprove superdeterminism

I'm not sure a mathematical proof that superdeterminism is not true is even necessary because a greater violation of Occam's Razor is quite literally impossible to imagine.  

> it's not feasible for 128 measurements, to mathematically, contain enough information and variation to also determine and the subsequent 2^128 outcomes.

 

128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and that would produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and looks completely random, 31415926535 897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ....., because that particular infinite series converges to the transcendental number π.

It's not that it's generating apparent random results though, superdeterminism requires results that are correlated to the way we choose to make the measurements.

So how can these correlations be predetermined to follow the outputs of this algorithm, when the deterministic algorithm is deciding what measurements to make? And the deterministic algorithm in question was chosen (deterministically) from prior measurements.

It has the feeling to me of a compression algorithm that could make any input smaller, but still perfectly decompress and return the original input. This is impossible because there are more larger messages than smaller ones, so the original input would be under determined.

With super determinism, every successive state of the universe is perfectly one-to-one. But this seems like it must down whenever we try to link the superdeterminism measurements results to against other functions that have many, or an infinite number of, outputs from one input or initial state.

Jason 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Bz3YOQYEC2GprKOXJW_QsicZdK-0yAOk52UN2nPzJYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

>> 128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and that would produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and looks completely random, 31415926535 897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ....., because that particular infinite series converges to the transcendental number π.

> It's not that it's generating apparent random results though, superdeterminism requires results that are correlated to the way we choose to make the measurements.

But according to superdeterminism your "choices" of how to make the measurements were also completely determined, if you had "chosen" to make the measurements in a certain way you could have shown that superdeterminism produce results that were self-contradictory, but you have never "chosen" to do so and you never will.  By the way, I feel a little queasy defending superdeterminism because I think the idea is completely idiotic.    

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ifq

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:52 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

>> 128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and that would produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and looks completely random, 31415926535 897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ....., because that particular infinite series converges to the transcendental number π.

> It's not that it's generating apparent random results though, superdeterminism requires results that are correlated to the way we choose to make the measurements.

But according to superdeterminism your "choices" of how to make the measurements were also completely determined, if you had "chosen" to make the measurements in a certain way you could have shown that superdeterminism produce results that were self-contradictory, but you have never "chosen" to do so and you never will.  By the way, I feel a little queasy defending superdeterminism because I think the idea is completely idiotic.    

But did (or could) superdeterminism choose the digits of Pi?

Jason

 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3S0Eo9faRV2kGKmNgfAWqbD0mtaaSjjij610HUKcJPkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:54 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But did (or could) superdeterminism choose the digits of Pi?

According to superdeterminism, yes. And according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

iqf

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 00:03, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:54 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But did (or could) superdeterminism choose the digits of Pi?

According to superdeterminism, yes. And according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit.

I still struggle to see the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. They both say that there is no true randomness, which includes randomness in how the experimenters set up their experiment. If everything is determined, then everything is perfectly correlated from the start of time. If you think it’s odd that it should be correlated in a particular way, that’s your problem, because it’s the universe we live in.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

iqf

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv18bQUH8%3DmdXkhwZ%2Bbg6Gvb8rr6mtVRd0MUxxEGiqqOaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit.

>I still struggle to see the difference between determinism and superdeterminism. They both say that there is no true randomness

Yes.

 

> which includes randomness in how the experimenters set up their experiment.

No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8 billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their instruments in such a way that they always INCORRECTLY conclude that things can NOT be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead to the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do seem to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the initial conditions were even further restrained such that we set our instruments correctly on all experiments EXCEPT when the experimenters try to test for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them incorrectly. That's why I don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. That is why I think superdeterminism is bullshit.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

dss

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Bell seemed to think that super determinism meant that the mind of the experimenters was determined along with everything else, which he described as a lack of “free will” (it seems he meant by this lack of randomness in their minds), which he thought was an assumption in the experiment:

“There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.”

[Jason Resch]

I agree with John. What makes superdeterminism weird isn't the determinism part. It's that the system is also rigged against us to produce the Bell inequality.

I am not sure if you saw my recent example on extropy-chat with flipping coins and always seeing heads 66% of the time, no matter what we do, but superdeterminism is basically saying that's just how it is the universe has preordained that humans flip coins such that they come up head's 66% of the time.

Jason 

Jason 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypWLBgv4E2ogPcOTywcg-ndqPbzxLJ3L6%2Bx62c5gGjkNBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8 billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their instruments in such a way that they always INCORRECTLY conclude that things can NOT be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead to the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do seem to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the initial conditions were even further restrained such that we set our instruments correctly on all experiments EXCEPT when the experimenters try to test for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them incorrectly. That's why I don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. That is why I think superdeterminism is bullshit.

> Bell seemed to think that super determinism meant that the mind of the experimenters was determined along with everything else, which he described as a lack of “free will”

I can't comment about that because I've never been able to figure out what people mean by "free will".  

> it seems he meant by this lack of randomness in their minds

But a lack of randomness is what you'd expect a mind to produce, at least a mind that was working properly, that's why when somebody does something we don't understand we say "why did you do that?" And if they can't give a good answer, a good reason, a good cause, to that then we say that their behavior was unreasonable.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eep

  

 

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Bell seems to have thought that that “free will” means true randomness in the mind of the experimenters, and that this is an assumption in his experiment.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with John. What makes superdeterminism weird isn't the determinism part. It's that the system is also rigged against us to produce the Bell inequality.

Yes.

> I am not sure if you saw my recent example on extropy-chat with flipping coins and always seeing heads 66% of the time, no matter what we do, but superdeterminism is basically saying that's just how it is the universe has preordained that humans flip coins such that they come up head's 66% of the time.

That's a good example of the sort of thing I was talking about, superdeterminism claims that the universe is lying to us. It sort of reminds me of the holy rollers and snake handlers who insist that God buried dinosaur bones deep in the ground just 5000 years ago but made them look like they were millions of years old in order to test our faith. God is supposed to be much smarter and much more powerful than we are so if he wants to fool us he certainly has the capacity to do so, but if we fall for his trickery He will torture for an infinite (the Bible doesn't make clear if that infinity is Aleph 0 or Aleph1) number of years. But as George Carlin reminds us, HE LOVES YOU!

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ghe

[Jesse Mazer]

I also think superdeterminism is "local" only on a technicality. If one is looking at the general class of superdeterminist theories rather than just the specific subset designed to reproduce quantum mechanical statistics, one could easily come up with a superdeterminist theory that allowed for apparent FTL information transmission, where for example everytime a "transmitter" was wiggled a certain way by experimenters, a corresponding "receiver" at a spacelike separation would always wiggle the same way. The superdeterminist "explanation" for this could be that while the dynamical laws obey locality, the match between transmitter and receiver is simply ensured by a special choice of initial conditions at the Big Bang (one that requires a specific kind of match between events in the past light cone of the reception-events that are not in the past light cone of the transmission-events, and events in the past light cone of the transmission-events that are not in the past light cone of the reception-events).

Jesse

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg-qicTi4dS_Xn0uZ%2B_ECkDFo60J%2BNCwndg4-3dgEXKvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 06:20, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:

I also think superdeterminism is "local" only on a technicality. If one is looking at the general class of superdeterminist theories rather than just the specific subset designed to reproduce quantum mechanical statistics, one could easily come up with a superdeterminist theory that allowed for apparent FTL information transmission, where for example everytime a "transmitter" was wiggled a certain way by experimenters, a corresponding "receiver" at a spacelike separation would always wiggle the same way. The superdeterminist "explanation" for this could be that while the dynamical laws obey locality, the match between transmitter and receiver is simply ensured by a special choice of initial conditions at the Big Bang (one that requires a specific kind of match between events in the past light cone of the reception-events that are not in the past light cone of the transmission-events, and events in the past light cone of the transmission-events that are not in the past light cone of the reception-events).

Doesn’t ordinary determinism make this logically possible, since all information is effectively produced by the same pseudorandom number generator? It isn’t actually the case in the universe we live in, because that’s the nature of the algorithm.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3KwfKhx7zJS48ZC7LddEaDvzQYVm%2BbHOCT593xuYeZUEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[smitra]

On 31-08-2023 06:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more
>> than
>> the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where
>> you
>> then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really
>> exists.
>> Locality then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory
>> is
>> manifestly local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions
>> and
>> observers are part of this dynamics. Although observer are not
>> explicitly treated as being part of the wavefunction that describes
>> the
>> entire system, the assumption is that in principle, this is the
>> case. In
>> practice, one can then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.
>
> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of
> the Bell inequalities. You merely claim that the local theory is such
> an account, but you do not spell it out.

John has addressed this in a subsequent reply where he cites an old
reply giving the detailed account involving polarizers.


Thing is that in conventional QM we only have the dynamics only involves
the Schrödinger equation and collapse. The time evolution according to
the Schrödinger equation is manifestly local, while the collapse is the
only non-local part. So, any version of QM in which there is no collapse
is guaranteed to be local.

Another important thing to note here is that Bell's theorem only applies
to hidden variable theories, it does not apply to QM in general. The MWI
is not a hidden variables theory, so Bell's theorem has nothing
whatsoever to say about this.

>
> We have had this discussion before, and you couldn't give the detailed
> local account then either.

You disputed the well established fact that all known interactions are
local. You would not take a formal answer like

psi(x, t) = Exp(-i H/hbar t) psi(x,0)

where H is the a local Hamiltonian that describes the dynamics for an
answer. You wanted me two explicitly write out H for a Bell-type
experiment for H a manifestly local Hamiltonian, and then to compute the
time evolution. Me not doing that was your argument that something
non-local was going on here.

Bell'e theorem applies in Everettian
> quantum mechanics in exactly the same way as it applies in one-world
> accounts. Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no
> local account is possible in any interpretation of QM.

Bell's theorem only applies to hidden variable theories, MWI is not a
hidden variables theory. Bell's theorem does not even prove that
Bell-type correlations are non-local in one-world interpretations of QM.
Until that time one postulates hidden variables, Bell's theorem has
nothing whatsoever to say about this.

Saibal

>
>> John points out the thought experiments by Deutsch makes it clear
>> that
>> the usual QM formalism will not work in certain cases, that will
>> then
>> falsify the ad hoc collapse postulate. If you then believe that MWI
>> cannot account for violation of Bell's inequalities while ordinary
>> QM
>> can, then that begs the question of how removing the FAPP
>> unobservable
>> sectors where all other outcomes are realized, could matter at all.
>
> The other sectors are not just FAPP unoservable, they are not
> observable in principle. How could the presence of unobservable fairy
> tales affect anything at all? The standard account of violations of
> the Bell inequalities in quantum mechanics relies on the notion of
> non-locality. And since the effect is non-local, no local account is
> possible.
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTAg%3D%2BVf34FWWYXZ3%2BxKwkZmNWdt2VM_CRfHHBm3nqE%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com
> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTAg%3D%2BVf34FWWYXZ3%2BxKwkZmNWdt2VM_CRfHHBm3nqE%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 10:26 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both ways -- Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that it is local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

 

"Realism" has EVERYTHING to do with it, and I spelled out exactly why in a post on May 4 2022 when somebody said they wanted to hear all the gory details and this is what I said:

I am not complaining that your explanations are too short, or too long. I am complaining because they do not answer the question I posed: "Spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of the violations of the Bell inequalities."

Let me summarize your argument. You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible. You then expect at least one of two things must be true:

1) The universe is not realistic.

2)The universe is non-local.

It is not clear how you get to this dichotomy, but once you have it, you claim that MWI is non-realistic,..., so it has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain experimental results. This conclusion is flatly illogical. Accepting one arm of the dichotomy does not mean that the other is false -- both could be false, or both could be true. In other words, the theory could be both non-realistic AND non-local.

I said that realism has nothing to do with the argument over Bell inequalities. It simply serves to point out that ordinary one-world QM is also non-realistic in your sense. So it is not a special feature of many worlds. Since everything in QM is non-realistic, "realism" has no particular bearing on the violations of Bell inequalities. Your initial dichotomy is, therefore, meaningless.

In his book "Something Deeply Hidden", Sean Carroll gives a better version of a similar argument (p.102ff). The argument still fails, as we shall see, but let's examine it further. Sean accepts that what Bell showed was that, under certain superficially reasonable assumptions, the quantum mechanical predictions are impossible to reproduce in any local theory. The assumptions that Carroll points to are that the experimenters are free to choose what measurement to make (no superdeterminism!) and, secondly, that measurements have definite outcomes. He rejects this latter assumption as being untrue in Everettian theories because all possible outcomes are realized in the branches of the wave function, The universe as a whole doesn't have any single outcome for a measurement: it has multiple ones. In rejecting this supposed assumption of Bell's, Sean goes on to argue that Bell's theorem is simply irrelevant for MWI -- it doesn't apply. Because He has removed Bell's theorem from consideration, Sean then concludes that MWI is local.

But, once again, this conclusion does not follow. MWI could be non-local for reasons unconnected with Bell's theorem. Arguing that Bell's theorem does not apply does not guarantee that your theory is local. Many people have tried this argument, but it is patently invalid.

There is another objection to Sean's argument. He claims that many worlds invalidates Bell's assumption that experiments have just one outcome. But in that whole history of physics, that has always been true. There has never been a case in which an experimenter has seen more than one outcome in a single experiment. Bell's theorem applies in many worlds exactly as it applies in single world theories. The reason is that when Alice and Bob perfore a series of polarization measurements on entangled particles to ascertain the correlation, all their measurements and calculations take place in a single world. In no case do they see more than a single result for each measurement, and in order to maintain agreement with universal physical observations, the alternative outcomes postulated by MWI must occur in separate, disjoint worlds. These 'other worlds' cannot impinge on either Alice or Bob, or their calculations, So even if Bell's theorem does assume a single outcome and a single world, that is all we ever have, even in MWI. So Bell's theorem applies in full force in MWI as in the single world case. Consequently, the correlations that Alice and Bob observe can have no local (or local hidden variable) explanation.

If you disagree with this argument, then I invite you to provide a counterexample by providing a local account of the correlations.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:43 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible.

Of course I agree with Bell's theorem, if I disagreed I would in effect be saying that high school algebra was wrong.  

> You then expect at least one of two things must be true:

1) The universe is not realistic.

2)The universe is non-local.

It is not clear how you get to this dichotomy,

I don't see anything unclear about it. If 2 entangled photons can exchange information faster than light then the fact that the two seem to be able to communicate with each other that fast is no longer a mystery. And if things (and that includes "you"), can exist in more than one state then it is no longer a mystery that a "you" exists in one of those states.  Please note that I did say "at least", things could be both non-local and not realistic, in fact I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that turned out to be the case.  

> but once you have it, you claim that MWI is non-realistic,..., so it has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain experimental results. This conclusion is flatly illogical. Accepting one arm of the dichotomy does not mean that the other is false -- both could be false, or both could be true.

No, we have experimental proof that they both cannot be true, but yes both could be false.  

> I said that realism has nothing to do with the argument over Bell inequalities. It simply serves to point out that ordinary one-world QM is also non-realistic in your sense. So it is not a special feature of many worlds.

I never claimed that experimental violation of Bell's Inequality proved that Many Worlds is true, I said that your original statement  "The many worlds idea has already been falsified because it cannot account for the observed violation of the Bell inequalities for entangled particles" is DEAD WRONG." I'm not certain that Many Worlds is correct, but I am certain it's the least bad explanation anybody has come up with, at least so far, as to why the quantum world is so weird. I'm certain of one other thing, whatever the truth turns out to be it's going to be odd, very very odd. Maybe Many Worlds is odd enough to be true, maybe not.

> MWI could be non-local for reasons unconnected with Bell's theorem. Arguing that Bell's theorem does not apply does not guarantee that your theory is local. Many people have tried this argument, but it is patently invalid. There is another objection to Sean's argument.

HOLD ON! Before you start talking about "another objection" explain the first one. Please explain how Hugh Everett's theory allows for the communication of information faster than the speed of light. 

 

> He claims that many worlds invalidates Bell's assumption that experiments have just one outcome. But in that whole history of physics, that has always been true.There has never been a case in which an experimenter has seen more than one outcome in a single experiment. Bell's theorem applies in many worlds exactly as it applies in single world theories. The reason is that when Alice and Bob perfore a series of polarization measurements on entangled particles to ascertain the correlation, all their measurements and calculations take place in a single world. In no case do they see more than a single result for each measurement,

What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.  
 

> f you disagree with this argument, then I invite you to provide a counterexample by providing a local account of the correlations.

OK. Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction. One example of a universe that DOES exist is one universe where the photon here on Earth makes it through its polarizer but its brother photon 2 million light years away in the Andromeda galaxy does not make it through its polarizer that is also oriented in the "up" direction. You can say that the split happens instantaneously when the earthly photon encounters its polarizer, or you could say the split starts on Earth and spreads outward at a finite speed, the speed of light; it makes absolutely no difference because either way you cannot send information faster than light.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lft

 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:37 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

On 31-08-2023 06:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:

> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of
> the Bell inequalities. You merely claim that the local theory is such
> an account, but you do not spell it out.

John has addressed this in a subsequent reply where he cites an old
reply giving the detailed account involving polarizers.

I have responded to John in a separate post. He appears to have a very weak grasp of logic, and his arguments are not valid.

Thing is that in conventional QM we only have the dynamics only involves
the Schrödinger equation and collapse.

The Schrodinger equation is not necessary for quantum mechanics. The Heiseberg matrix formulation does not involve the SE. Time evolution is just a unitary transformation after all. The wave function is not necessary. Dirac, in his book on quantum mechanics, mentions the wave function only in an inconsequential footnote.

The time evolution according to
the Schrödinger equation is manifestly local,

But unitary evolution according to the SE cannot account for the correlation of entangled particles.

while the collapse is the
only non-local part. So, any version of QM in which there is no collapse
is guaranteed to be local.

Another important thing to note here is that Bell's theorem only applies
to hidden variable theories, it does not apply to QM in general.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? As John has pointed out, Bell's theorem does not require even quantum mechanics. It is just a piece of mathematics.It applies with complete generality to quantum mechanics, with or without hidden variables.

 

The MWI
is not a hidden variables theory, so Bell's theorem has nothing
whatsoever to say about this.

Again, As I pointed out to John, even if you assume that Bell's theorem does not apply to MWI (and of course it does), then it does not follow that the theory is local. It could be non-local for reasons unconnected with Bell's theorem.

> We have had this discussion before, and you couldn't give the detailed
> local account then either.

You disputed the well established fact that all known interactions are

locaThat is not a well establised fact. Given the violations of the Bell inequalitiers, the only well established fact is that standard QM is non-local.

 

You would not take a formal answer like

  psi(x, t) = Exp(-i H/hbar t) psi(x,0)

where H is the a local Hamiltonian that describes the dynamics for an
answer.

Of course that is not an answer. It is merely a re-stating of your contention that QM is always local. Whether or not that Hamiltonian formulation is able to account for the Bell-type correlations is precisely the point at issue. Restating that the correlations do indeed have a local explanation does not take us any further forward.

You wanted me two explicitly write out H for a Bell-type
experiment for H a manifestly local Hamiltonian, and then to compute the
time evolution. Me not doing that was your argument that something
non-local was going on here.

No. My argument hinges on the applicability and universality of Bell's theorem. Your failure to provide a counterexample was merely proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

 Bell's theorem applies in Everettian

> quantum mechanics in exactly the same way as it applies in one-world
> accounts. Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no
> local account is possible in any interpretation of QM.

Bell's theorem only applies to hidden variable theories,

Bullshit. We have disposed of that canard already.

MWI is not a
hidden variables theory. Bell's theorem does not even prove that
Bell-type correlations are non-local in one-world interpretations of QM.
Until that time one postulates hidden variables, Bell's theorem has
nothing whatsoever to say about this.

Even if Bell's theorem does not apply, there is no reason to suppose that the theory is local, since no classical account of the correlations is possible.

Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:58 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:43 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible.

Of course I agree with Bell's theorem, if I disagreed I would in effect be saying that high school algebra was wrong.  

> You then expect at least one of two things must be true:

1) The universe is not realistic.

2)The universe is non-local.

It is not clear how you get to this dichotomy,

I don't see anything unclear about it. If 2 entangled photons can exchange information faster than light

Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer information FTL. Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.

HOLD ON! Before you start talking about "another objection" explain the first one. Please explain how Hugh Everett's theory allows for the communication of information faster than the speed of light.

 

"Non-local" does no mean that anything physical is transmitted FTL.

> He claims that many worlds invalidates Bell's assumption that experiments have just one outcome. But in that whole history of physics, that has always been true.There has never been a case in which an experimenter has seen more than one outcome in a single experiment. Bell's theorem applies in many worlds exactly as it applies in single world theories. The reason is that when Alice and Bob perform a series of polarization measurements on entangled particles to ascertain the correlation, all their measurements and calculations take place in a single world. In no case do they see more than a single result for each measurement,

What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.

There may well be copies of the experimenter in MWI, but for any particular individual among these copies, the outcome of their experiments are unique. Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.

> f you disagree with this argument, then I invite you to provide a counterexample by providing a local account of the correlations.

OK. Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction.

Mere assertion is not proof of anything.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer information FTL.

BULLSHIT!

> Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.

Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the Moon, if I  aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y also on the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my laser before anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth has gone off, and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at point Y sees a light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on planet Earth sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the Earth or on the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster than light. If it was possible to transmit information FTL according to relativity you could send a message into the past, you could talk to  the Bruce Kellett of yesterday and that would create paradoxes.

 

> "Non-local" does no mean that anything physical is transmitted FTL.

Being "local" means that there is a finite limit to the speed of PHYSICAL causality, and in this universe that speed seems to be the speed of light. 

>> What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.

> There may well be copies of the experimenter in MWI, but for any particular individual among these copies, the outcome of their experiments are unique.

Yes.

 

> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.

Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible if things were both realistic and local. 

>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction.

> Mere assertion is not proof of anything.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light beams with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and it's been known since 1905 that light beams are made up of photons. None of this is controversial, it's physics 101. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

p1o

[scerir]

local, non-local, separable, non-separable, causes, correlations, influences, physical speed limit, speed of quantum influences, space-time, out of space-time, many worlds, many physical worlds, what a mess

Testing spooky action at a distance

D. Salart, A. Baas, C. Branciard, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden

In science, one observes correlations and invents theoretical models that describe them. In all sciences, besides quantum physics, all correlations are described by either of two mechanisms. Either a first event influences a second one by sending some information encoded in bosons or molecules or other physical carriers, depending on the particular science. Or the correlated events have some common causes in their common past. Interestingly, quantum physics predicts an entirely different kind of cause for some correlations, named entanglement. This new kind of cause reveals itself, e.g., in correlations that violate Bell inequalities (hence cannot be described by common causes) between space-like separated events (hence cannot be described by classical communication). Einstein branded it as spooky action at a distance. A real spooky action at a distance would require a faster than light influence defined in some hypothetical universally privileged reference frame. Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the speed of all such hypothetical influences. We performed a Bell test during more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately east-west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We continuously observed 2-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation, the configuration of our experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, a lower bound for the speed of this spooky influence. For instance, if such a privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth's speed in this frame is less than 10^-3 that of the speed of light, then the speed of this spooky influence would have to exceed that of light by at least 4 orders of magnitude.

Comments:	Preliminary version of Nature 454, 861-864 (14 August 2008). 5 pages and 5 figures
Subjects:	Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:	arXiv:0808.3316 [quant-ph]
	(or arXiv:0808.3316v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0808.3316
Journal reference:	Nature 454, 861-864 (14 August 2008)
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07121

 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:41 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer information FTL.

BULLSHIT!

> Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.

Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the Moon, if I  aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y also on the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my laser before anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth has gone off, and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at point Y sees a light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on planet Earth sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the Earth or on the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster than light. If it was possible to transmit information FTL according to relativity you could send a message into the past, you could talk to  the Bruce Kellett of yesterday and that would create paradoxes.

No. The example was not particularly well thought out. My point is that geometrical motions can exceed light velocity, and distant galaxies recede at greater than light speed. Light speed limits only physical transmission, unless by tachyons. In fine, understanding non-locality probably involves refining our understanding of space and time.

> "Non-local" does no mean that anything physical is transmitted FTL.

Being "local" means that there is a finite limit to the speed of PHYSICAL causality, and in this universe that speed seems to be the speed of light.

Things do need to be rethought in the light of violations of the Bell inequalities and the unambiguous non-locality that this implies.

>> What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.

But for any one observer, even in many worlds, there is only ever one outcome for each experiment. And the existence of other words does not affect the result that that individual observer obtains. Hence Bell's theorem applies separately for every individual, even in many worlds.

> There may well be copies of the experimenter in MWI, but for any particular individual among these copies, the outcome of their experiments are unique.

Yes.

 

> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.

Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible if things were both realistic and local. 

That dichotomy does not apply.

>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction.

That is one of the things that have to be explained.

> Mere assertion is not proof of anything.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light beams with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and it's been known since 1905 that light beams are made up of photons. None of this is controversial, it's physics 101. 

So how do entangled photons end up with opposite polarizations in an arbitrarily chosen direction?

Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

Interesting. But I don't think non-locality is to be understood in these terms: It probably involves rethinking our notions of time and space.

Bruce

[scerir]

 

Il 04/09/2023 12:29 +01 Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

 

No. The example was not particularly well thought out. My point is that geometrical motions can exceed light velocity, and distant galaxies recede at greater than light speed. Light speed limits only physical transmission, unless by tachyons. In fine, understanding non-locality probably involves refining our understanding of space and time.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26790

Anton Zeilinger. “It appears that an understanding is possible via the notion of information. Information seen as the possibility of obtaining knowledge. Then quantum entanglement describes a situation where information exists about possible correlations between possible future results of possible future measurements without any information existing for the individual measurements. The latter explains quantum randomness, the first quantum entanglement. And both have significant consequences for our customary notions of causality. It remains to be seen what the consequences are for our notions of space and time, or space-time for that matter. Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond such considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-time, a conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the Viennese physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s absolute space and absolute time form their throne. The hope is that in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity.”

 

[Jason Resch]

As Rob Garrett shows here, there's really nothing mysterious about entanglement.

Entanglement is merely measurement. The mystery, if there is one, is why are measurements consistent across time:

https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=psmNck41LbAW4SjV

Jason

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/243069131.8543635.1693828098555%40mail1.libero.it.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.

>> Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the Moon, if I  aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y also on the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my laser before anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth has gone off, and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at point Y sees a light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on planet Earth sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the Earth or on the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster than light. If it was possible to transmit information FTL according to relativity you could send a message into the past, you could talk to  the Bruce Kellett of yesterday and that would create paradoxes.

> No. The example was not particularly well thought out.

That's true, your example wasn't particularly well thought out.

 

> My point is that geometrical motions can exceed light velocity,

So what? That has nothing to do with the speed of causality or the maximum speed that matter, energy or information can travel.  

> and distant galaxies recede at greater than light speed.

In General Relativity space is allowed to expand at any speed, but nothing in space can move faster than light through that space, that's why we can't see those distant galaxies and never will be able to. And that's why they can no longer affect us in any way and we can no longer effect them. By the way, why do you believe that those distant galaxies REALLY exist when you don't believe that any of Everett's Many Worlds do? 

 

>> If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.

> But for any one observer, even in many worlds, there is only ever one outcome for each experiment.

Yes but each experimenter has a different memory of how previous experiments turned up, most were only slightly different but some were radically different.   

> And the existence of other words does not affect the result that that individual observer obtains. Hence Bell's theorem applies separately for every individual, even in many worlds.

And I said precisely that in my previous email  "in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible if things were both realistic and local".

 

>>> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.

>>Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible if things were both realistic and local. 

>That dichotomy does not apply.

If  you really believe that then you are in effect claiming that John Stewart Bell was wrong, and every mathematician and physicist on planet Earth is wrong, and high school algebra is wrong,  Do you REALLY believe that? Are you really that desperate to get rid of Many Worlds? 

>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same direction.

> That is one of the things that have to be explained.

Entangled photons are most commonly created by sending a single photon through a crystal that has nonlinear optical characteristics, when that happens the photon is destroyed and 2 entangled photons are produced, each with exactly half the energy of the deceased parent photon. For the conservation of angular momentum to be preserved the 2 photons MUST have opposite polarizations. Probably the most common crystal to do this is Beta Barium Borate (BaB2O4) but there are others.

 

>> DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light beams with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and it's been known since 1905 that light beams are made up of photons. None of this is controversial, it's physics 101. 

> So how do entangled photons end up with opposite polarizations in an arbitrarily chosen direction?

That is the greatest mystery in all of Quantum Mechanics, if you can get that part right the hard part is over. Many Worlds explains it by saying the photon is in every POSSIBLE physical direction  (but NOT those that are physically impossible) and there may or may not be an observer and all of those possible physical directions.  You'll have to ask somebody else to explain how Copenhagen explains this, but be warned, if you ask 3 believers you'll get 5 very different explanations, all of them confusing and are so vague they're not even wrong. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

5dd

[smitra]

On 04-09-2023 01:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:37 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 31-08-2023 06:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations
>> of
>>> the Bell inequalities. You merely claim that the local theory is
>> such
>>> an account, but you do not spell it out.
>>
>> John has addressed this in a subsequent reply where he cites an old
>> reply giving the detailed account involving polarizers.
>
> I have responded to John in a separate post. He appears to have a very
> weak grasp of logic, and his arguments are not valid.
>
>> Thing is that in conventional QM we only have the dynamics only
>> involves
>> the Schrödinger equation and collapse.
>
> The Schrodinger equation is not necessary for quantum mechanics. The
> Heiseberg matrix formulation does not involve the SE. Time evolution
> is just a unitary transformation after all. The wave function is not
> necessary. Dirac, in his book on quantum mechanics, mentions the wave
> function only in an inconsequential footnote.
>

It's equivalent, so it doesn;t matter that there exists an alternative
formalism.

>> The time evolution according to
>> the Schrödinger equation is manifestly local,
>
> But unitary evolution according to the SE cannot account for the
> correlation of entangled particles.
>

It can, just calculate it and don't collapse the wavefunction. If the
parallel worlds are unobservable FAPP, then it shouldn't matter whether
or not you assume they exist or not, at least for these sorts of
practical experiments.

>> while the collapse is the
>> only non-local part. So, any version of QM in which there is no
>> collapse
>> is guaranteed to be local.
>
>> Another important thing to note here is that Bell's theorem only
>> applies
>> to hidden variable theories, it does not apply to QM in general.
>
> Where on earth did you get that idea from? As John has pointed out,
> Bell's theorem does not require even quantum mechanics. It is just a
> piece of mathematics.It applies with complete generality to quantum
> mechanics, with or without hidden variables.
>

Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories, it's not a
theorem of QM in the sense of something that follows from the postulates
of QM like e.g Ehrenfest's theorem. It's theorem that follows from he
assumed properties of a general local hidden variables theory and it
derives bounds on correlations. You can then consider the correlations
of certain observables in QM and see that they violate these
inequalities.

What conclusions can we draw? If we assume that QM is not fundamental
and that there exists a hidden variables theory that reproduces QM
either exactly or to a good approximation, then we can conclude that
such a hidden variables theory cannot be local.

Or we can conclude that QM is fundamental and that there is no deeper
hidden variables theory underlying QM. In this case the violation of
Bell's inequality does not imply non-locality. However, collapse is then
still a non-local mechanism.

>> The MWI
>> is not a hidden variables theory, so Bell's theorem has nothing
>> whatsoever to say about this.
>
> Again, As I pointed out to John, even if you assume that Bell's
> theorem does not apply to MWI (and of course it does), then it does
> not follow that the theory is local. It could be non-local for reasons
> unconnected with Bell's theorem.
>

Yes, but the only source of non-locality is collapse. Once you get rid
of collapse, the theory becomes local, because the Standard Model is a
local theory.

>>> We have had this discussion before, and you couldn't give the
>> detailed
>>> local account then either.
>>
>> You disputed the well established fact that all known interactions
>> are
>> locaThat is not a well establised fact. Given the violations of the
>> Bell inequalitiers, the only well established fact is that standard
>> QM is non-local.
>

As pointed out above the violation of Bell's inequality only implies
non-locality in hidden variables models. Bell's theorem s a theorem
derived from the general properties of an arbitrary local hidden
variables theory and one then derives bounds for correlations.

You seem to pretend that it's a theorem of QM, in which case one would
start from the postulates of QM and derive bounds on correlations for
any system described by a local Hamiltonian. That's obviously not true.

>> You would not take a formal answer like
>>
>> psi(x, t) = Exp(-i H/hbar t) psi(x,0)
>>
>> where H is the a local Hamiltonian that describes the dynamics for
>> an
>> answer.
>
> Of course that is not an answer. It is merely a re-stating of your
> contention that QM is always local. Whether or not that Hamiltonian
> formulation is able to account for the Bell-type correlations is
> precisely the point at issue. Restating that the correlations do
> indeed have a local explanation does not take us any further forward.
>

No non-local interactions have ever been demonstrated to exist.

>> You wanted me two explicitly write out H for a Bell-type
>> experiment for H a manifestly local Hamiltonian, and then to compute
>> the
>> time evolution. Me not doing that was your argument that something
>> non-local was going on here.
>
> No. My argument hinges on the applicability and universality of Bell's
> theorem. Your failure to provide a counterexample was merely proof
> that you don't know what you are talking about.
>

Bell's theorem only applies to local hidden variables theories. It only
applies to QM in the sense of ruling out that if QM is not fundamental
and has an underlying hidden variables theory, that this hidden
variables theory can be local.

>> Bell's theorem applies in Everettian
>>> quantum mechanics in exactly the same way as it applies in
>> one-world
>>> accounts. Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so
>> no
>>> local account is possible in any interpretation of QM.
>>
>> Bell's theorem only applies to hidden variable theories,
>
> Bullshit. We have disposed of that canard already.
>

Show me any derivation of an inequality of correlations in Bell-type
experiments that follows not from the assumption of an underlying local
hidden variables theory, but directly from only assuming local
interactions and the general postulates of QM.

As you are well aware, QM itself leads to the prediction that certain
correlations actually violate Bell's inequalities.

>> MWI is not a
>> hidden variables theory. Bell's theorem does not even prove that
>> Bell-type correlations are non-local in one-world interpretations of
>> QM.
>> Until that time one postulates hidden variables, Bell's theorem has
>> nothing whatsoever to say about this.
>
> Even if Bell's theorem does not apply, there is no reason to suppose
> that the theory is local, since no classical account of the
> correlations is possible.
>

Classical mechanics has been falsified a long time ago. It's irrelevant
that no classical account of correlations is possible.

Saibal


> Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

On 04-09-2023 01:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:37 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> The time evolution according to
>> the Schrödinger equation is manifestly local,
>
> But unitary evolution according to the SE cannot account for the
> correlation of entangled particles.
>

It can, just calculate it and don't collapse the wavefunction.

OK. So show me this calculation that gives a local explanation of the correlations.

>> Another important thing to note here is that Bell's theorem only
>> applies to hidden variable theories, it does not apply to QM in general.
>
> Where on earth did you get that idea from? As John has pointed out,
> Bell's theorem does not require even quantum mechanics. It is just a
> piece of mathematics.It applies with complete generality to quantum
> mechanics, with or without hidden variables.
>

Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories

It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics and I have never met this contention before. Maybe 'scerir' has some reference to it, but I have never seen such a suggestion. The point, it seems to me, is that Bell's theorem concludes that any hidden variable completion of quantum mechanics must be non-local. Since standard QM has no explanation for the correlations, it might be supposed that some hidden variable completion of the theory would work. However, Bell shows that even such a hidden variable completion of the theory must be non-local. But this is the case for any formulation of quantum mechanics -- one does not have to assume the existence of hidden variables in order to derive the Bell inequalities. The standard formulation of quantum mechanics explains the correlations non-locally.

There is a simple argument for non-locality:

A) All local systems are separable (factorizable).

Hence all non-separable (non-factorizable) systems are non-local.

The entangled singlet state is non-separable. Therefore it is non-local.

What conclusions can we draw? If we assume that QM is not fundamental
and that there exists a hidden variables theory that reproduces QM
either exactly or to a good approximation, then we can conclude that
such a hidden variables theory cannot be local.

Or we can conclude that QM is fundamental and that there is no deeper
hidden variables theory underlying QM. In this case the violation of
Bell's inequality does not imply non-locality. However, collapse is then
still a non-local mechanism.

If QM is fundamental and complete, then it must contain a local explanation of the Bell correlations. No-one has ever been able to produce such an explanation. Reality is, therefore, fundamentally non-local.

> Again, As I pointed out to John, even if you assume that Bell's
> theorem does not apply to MWI (and of course it does), then it does
> not follow that the theory is local. It could be non-local for reasons
> unconnected with Bell's theorem.


Yes, but the only source of non-locality is collapse. Once you get rid
of collapse, the theory becomes local, because the Standard Model is a
local theory.

And the standard Model (with or without collapse) cannot explain the Bell-type correlations.

You seem to pretend that it's a theorem of QM, in which case one would
start from the postulates of QM and derive bounds on correlations for
any system described by a local Hamiltonian. That's obviously not true.

Strange, then, that John Bell managed to do that.

Bruce

[scerir]

According to John Bell, if A is one of the two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, and if B is the other of the two wings, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda is the hidden-variable joint state description of the composite (entangled) quantum system, we can write the following

 

Bell factorisability condition

 

p_A,B,Lambda (x,y|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i) p_B,Lambda (y|j)

 

which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal to the product of the the separate probabilities.

 

We know that so many experiments have shown the expression above is far from reality. In other words it is well known that this factorisability condition is violated by quantum mechanics (QM).

 

Following Jarrett (and also Shimony, Howard, Cushing, Suppes, van Fraassen, and others) the Bell factorisability condition is equivalent to two independent conditions,

 

Locality Condition

 

p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i)

 

p_B,Lambda (y|i,j) = p_B,Lambda (y|j)

 

Separability Condition

 

p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)

 

p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)

 

where Locality is defined as: Given two systems A and B, space-like separated, the state of A cannot be influenced by events (measurements) on B, and viceversa.

 

where Separability is defined as: Two systems, separated by some spatio-temporal interval, possess their own separate states, regardless of their previous history, and the joint state is completely determined by their own separate states.

 

Eberhard, Page, Shimony, Ghirardi (et al.) have shown that QM only implies the violation of the Separability condition (the world is non-separable, there is wholeness, there is some tao in physics) .

 

In other words it is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard, Cushing, Eberhard, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that QM violates the Separability condition but does not violate the Locality condition.

 

In physical terms the above means that QM does not allow faster than light (FTL) signaling (Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento, 46B, 1978, 392; Ghirardi et al., Found. Phys., 23, 1993, 341).

 

It is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard, Eberhard, Cushing, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that a “deterministic” theory (i.e. one in which the range of any probability distribution of outcomes is the set: 0 or 1) reproducing all the predictions of QM, does not violate the Separability Condition, but must violate the Locality Condition.

 

In fact the Separability Condition means that ...

 

p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)

 

p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)

 

so, if the specification of Lambda, i, j, in principle determines completely the outcomes x, y, then any additional conditioning on x or y is superfluous, having x and y just one value allowed, so they cannot affect the probability, which (in a deterministic theory) can take just the values 0 or 1.

 

Thus a *deterministic* QM can not violate the Separability Condition and must violate the Locality Condition, which means ... faster than light (FTL) signaling.

 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

 

>> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories

> It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics and I have never met this contention before.

Huh? How can you "have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory that assumes local realism can account for experimental observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is: 

"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says: 

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

And I might add that in the duel between theories that assume local realism and quantum mechanics, experimental observation has determined that the undisputed winner was quantum mechanics. 

> standard QM has no explanation for the correlations

Yes. That has been the standard complaint about Quantum Mechanics since the day it was invented, it can tell you what will happen with very high precision but it can't tell you why, that's why quantum interpretation has become a major industry and why very few ever felt there was a need for a Newtonian interpretation. The leading interpretation, if you could even call it an interpretation, is the one from Copenhagen which is so vague it's not even wrong, the second most popular is "Shut Up And Calculate" which works fine if you're only interested in engineering considerations, the third most popular is Many Worlds which starts from the experimentally derived FACT that things cannot be both local and realistic and then just follows to where Schrodinger's Equation leads.  And it turns out it leads to many worlds.  

 

>> You seem to pretend that it's a theorem of QM, in which case one would
start from the postulates of QM and derive bounds on correlations for
any system described by a local Hamiltonian. That's obviously not true.

> Strange, then, that John Bell managed to do that.

As I mentioned before, in John Bell's paper where he derived his inequality he first assumed that things were both realistic and local and then just used high school algebra and logic, he didn't use any Quantum Mechanics at all to derive it, although he did show that his inequality was incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. At the time he didn't know if his inequality was true or not because it would be about two decades before it was experimentally shown to be untrue. Since nobody believed that Bell's algebra or logic was wrong the only conclusion was that the starting assumption must be incorrect and things could not be locally realistic. If it had been experimentally found that the inequality was true then that would have proven that Quantum Mechanics made a wrong prediction and so must be incomplete, but that's not the way things turned out.

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

okx

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:34 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

 

>> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories

> It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics and I have never met this contention before.

Huh? How can you "have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory that assumes local realism can account for experimental observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is: 

"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says: 

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. The derivation of the Bell inequality that you refer to in Wikipedia is not the derivation given by Bell in his original papers. Bell's own derivation appears later in the article, and you can see that Bell does not make the realism assumption. Since the inequality can be derived without this assumption, violating relaasm makes no difference to the overall result. The correlations in any local theory must satisfy the inequality. Bell shows that the quantum mechanical correlations violate the inequality, so quantum mechanics cannot be a local theory, and any hidden variable completion of QM must also be non-local. Other people have claimed that Bell made a whole range of other assumptions that their pet theories violate, thus rendering Be;ll's theorem toothless. But one is hard-pressed to see where any of these supposed additional assumptions come in. In fact, the range of things sometimes said to be assumed are often contradictory.

The important point is that Bell used a particular implementation of the idea of locality for his theorem, and few other assumptions (the main one being the absence of superdeterminism), leaving the consequence of violations of the inequality pretty clear -- any such theory must be non-local. Quantum mechanics violates the inequality, therefore quantum mechanics is intrinsically non-local. Experiment confirms the quantum mechanical predictions. But since the inequality itself does not depend on any assumption of realism, the observed violations cannot be explained by claiming that the theory is local but non-realistic -- as I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it. The Wikipedia article is quite misleading in this respect because it does not make clear that the result can also be derived without assuming realism (measurement results exist in the state before the measurement is performed.) In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and non-realist.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Huh? How can you "have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory that assumes local realism can account for experimental observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is: 

"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says: 

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

> Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. [...]   as I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it.

So let's see...., Wikipedia is wrong, John Stewart Bell is wrong, and high school algebra is wrong, but Bruce Kellett is absolutely positively 100% correct. Have I got that about right?

> In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and non-realist.

What are you talking about? The non-existence of a property does not render it meaningless, dragons don't exist but I know what the word means, it's not gibberish. And like Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds is also non-realistic, good thing too because otherwise it wouldn't match experimental results. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

nwm

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:31 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Huh? How can you "have read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory that assumes local realism can account for experimental observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is: 

"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says: 

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

> Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. [...]   as I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it.

So let's see...., Wikipedia is wrong, John Stewart Bell is wrong, and high school algebra is wrong, but Bruce Kellett is absolutely positively 100% correct. Have I got that about right?

Get a grip, John. That is not what I said. The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism, so realism is irrelevant to the issue.

> In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and non-realist.

What are you talking about? The non-existence of a property does not render it meaningless, dragons don't exist but I know what the word means, it's not gibberish. And like Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds is also non-realistic, good thing too because otherwise it wouldn't match experimental results. 

You really have lost the plot, haven't you!

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism

Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

urw 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:14 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism

Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it. 

I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong......

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism

>> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it. 

>I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong......

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or not local or both, but there is another inequality called  Leggett's inequality involving linear and elliptical polarized light that can narrow down that uncertainty. Leggett found his inequality in 2003 and it was experimentally proven to be violated in 2010. Nature is probably the best scientific journal in the world but I'm sure you'll say it's wrong just as you claim that Wikipedia was wrong because it says that you are incorrect and that the world is BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic.

"Bell's inequality is established based on local realism. The violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either locality or realism or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived based on nonlocal realism. The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum mechanics is neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic."  

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect

 By now I think you know you were wrong, but of course you will never admit it.

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

nvb

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:59 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism

>> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it. 

>I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong......

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or not local or both,

I have said that and you denied it. QM is non-realistic anyway. The quantum violation of the Bell inequalities show that it is also non-local. So it is neither realistic nor local. No problems there. The violations of realism have nothing to do with Bell, since his derivation does not assume realism, despite your claims to the contrary.

but there is another inequality called  Leggett's inequality involving linear and elliptical polarized light that can narrow down that uncertainty. Leggett found his inequality in 2003 and it was experimentally proven to be violated in 2010. Nature is probably the best scientific journal in the world but I'm sure you'll say it's wrong just as you claim that Wikipedia was wrong because it says that you are incorrect and that the world is BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic.

"Bell's inequality is established based on local realism.

False.

The violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either locality or realism or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived based on nonlocal realism.

Whatever that might be. But it seems to be based on a form of realism, certainly.

The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum mechanics is neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic."  

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect

 By now I think you know you were wrong, but of course you will never admit it.

If you want to prove me wrong, give a local account of the violation of the Bell inequalities in non-realistic many worlds. MWI is both non-realistic and non-local.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or not local or both,

> I have said that and you denied it.

Show me where I denied that!!  I had been saying that things are not realistic or not local or both for well over a decade, but thanks to Leggett I now know that the answer is BOTH.
 

> QM is non-realistic anyway.

 

The experimental violation of Bell's Inequality proves that any theory that hopes to explain how the world works (QM for example) must be not realistic or not local or both, but the experimental violation of Leggett's inequality proves that any theory that hopes to explain how the world works must be BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic, period. QM and MWI pass both the Bell and the Leggett test, that doesn't prove that either is correct but it does prove that whatever theory turns out to be true cannot be local and cannot be realistic. And neither test is able to prove that QM or the MWI is wrong.  
 

>> "Bell's inequality is established based on local realism."

> False.

 I didn't say that, the science journal Nature said that. So now according to you not only is Wikipedia wrong but so is the science journal Nature, the oldest and most prestigious science journal in the world. Do you really think that people should believe you and not them?  Bruce, nobody wins every argument, with this constant denial in the face of mounting evidence you're starting to make a fool of yourself.

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect

 

> MWI is both non-realistic and non-local.

I agree, so what are we arguing about? Yes MWI is both non-realistic and non-local, if it was not it would not have passed BOTH the Bell and the Leggett inequality and it would no longer be in agreement with all known experiments and it would no longer be a viable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

nwe

 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:12 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or not local or both,

> I have said that and you denied it.

Show me where I denied that!!  I had been saying that things are not realistic or not local or both for well over a decade, but thanks to Leggett I now know that the answer is BOTH.
 

> QM is non-realistic anyway.

 

The experimental violation of Bell's Inequality proves that any theory that hopes to explain how the world works (QM for example) must be not realistic or not local or both, but the experimental violation of Leggett's inequality proves that any theory that hopes to explain how the world works must be BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic, period. QM and MWI pass both the Bell and the Leggett test, that doesn't prove that either is correct but it does prove that whatever theory turns out to be true cannot be local and cannot be realistic. And neither test is able to prove that QM or the MWI is wrong.  
 

>> "Bell's inequality is established based on local realism."

> False.

 I didn't say that, the science journal Nature said that. So now according to you not only is Wikipedia wrong but so is the science journal Nature, the oldest and most prestigious science journal in the world. Do you really think that people should believe you and not them?  Bruce, nobody wins every argument, with this constant denial in the face of mounting evidence you're starting to make a fool of yourself.

You made a fool of yourself a long time ago. You didn't read Bell's papers with sufficient attention, if at all.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 7:40 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> "Bell's inequality is established based on local realism."

>>> False.

 >> I didn't say that, the science journal Nature said that. So now according to you not only is Wikipedia wrong but so is the science journal Nature, the oldest and most prestigious science journal in the world. Do you really think that people should believe you and not them?  Bruce, nobody wins every argument, with this constant denial in the face of mounting evidence you're starting to make a fool of yourself.  

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect 

> You made a fool of yourself a long time ago. You didn't read Bell's papers with sufficient attention, if at all.

 

It wasn't just me, according to you the people at the science journal Nature and Wikipedia didn't read Bell's paper with sufficient attention either, but of course you did. Do you really expect other people to believe that? Do you even believe it yourself?  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

wjm 

[Jesse Mazer]

Whether violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities rule out nonlocal realistic theories seems to be a matter of definition, the inequality is violated in Bohmian mechanics which is often referred to as a nonlocal realistic theory, see the discussion on p. 12 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6139.pdf -- apparently Leggett/Garg were saying violations of the inequalities rule out nonlocal theories that lack macroscopic superpositions, but they defined this in such a way that the Bohm interpretation *would* involve macroscopic superpositions despite the particles having unique locations at all times.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1hhWfRoKLTLSxjsYznGM3wJ_uMu90mH646F3p9Zj6urg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 PM Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whether violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities rule out nonlocal realistic theories seems to be a matter of definition, the inequality is violated in Bohmian mechanics which is often referred to as a nonlocal realistic theory,

 David Deutsch, one of the leading advocates of Many Worlds, said  "the de Broglie–Bohm theory, is a parallel universe theory in denial", he thinks it's basically saying the same thing but just uses more euphemisms so as to be less upsetting to people. He says the pilot wave theory "boils down to a probability field that acts like particles in other universes interfering with particles in our universe".

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

dxd

 

[Jesse Mazer]

I tend to agree with Deutsch's intuitions on this but I think it gets into philosophical questions like whether the pilot wave being in some computational sense equivalent to MWI means that observers in other branches are "real", have their own distinct conscious experiences etc. It seems like it's at least a coherent philosophical interpretation of QM to postulate that only brain states corresponding to actual particle positions/movements in Bohmian mechanics give rise to conscious experiences, even though this seems very contrived and implausible to me.

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0zzV0ua9uKe_H%2B3UNUDALMPwgEuKYWQZrhrV%2BN_y8TdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:20 PM Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Deutsch's intuitions on this but I think it gets into philosophical questions like whether the pilot wave being in some computational sense equivalent to MWI means that observers in other branches are "real", have their own distinct conscious experiences etc. It seems like it's at least a coherent philosophical interpretation of QM to postulate that only brain states corresponding to actual particle positions/movements in Bohmian mechanics give rise to conscious experiences, even though this seems very contrived and implausible to me.

It does seem contrived because the situation is symmetrical, somebody in one of those other universes could say the same thing about us.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

dss