divisionbyzero

Yea... I have very little time to backtrack. Seems I just keep proving with every post that I'm just not ready for this. I wish you guys all the best. I think you help a lot of students. Keep up the good work.

This is where Brady marches his team straight down the field and throws the winning TD just before time runs out… Bell's Theorem is a fundamental result in quantum mechanics that addresses the nature of reality and the relationship between particles. It shows that if certain conditions (local realism) are true, then the predictions of quantum mechanics about the behavior of particles should not hold. In simpler terms, Bell's Theorem suggests that if two particles are entangled, their properties can be correlated in ways that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables. So… 1.Local Realism: This is the idea that objects have definite properties (like position or momentum) before they are measured, and that no information can travel faster than light (locality). 2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. 3. Predictions: Bell's Theorem leads to predictions about the results of experiments that can be tested. Experiments have shown that the results align with quantum mechanics, contradicting local realism. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), proposed by Hugh Everett III, suggests that every time a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into multiple branches with each possible outcome realized in its own world. This interpretation provides a way to understand quantum mechanics without the need for wave function collapse. Conclusion Nope. The states are undetermined. You can’t say one affects the other, because it’s not in a definite state. It does not, e.g. flip a particle from spin up to spin down. There is no interaction. It simply makes the state known, which is what you expect from a measurement. Absolutely true... I stand corrected. Thank you. 1. No Collapse of the Wave Function. In Many Worlds, the wave function never collapses; all outcomes exist simultaneously in separate worlds. This differs from the assumptions in Bell's Theorem, which relies on a single outcome occurring when a measurement is made. 2. Independence of Worlds: Each branch of the universe in MWI operates independently. Since the outcomes in different worlds do not influence each other, this independence may lead to a violation of the correlations described by Bell's Theorem. 3.Lack of Local Hidden Variables: Bell's Theorem suggests that if local hidden variables exist, they should account for the correlations observed. MWI denies the existence of hidden variables altogether, which may contradict the framework of Bell's Theorem. 4. Non-Locality and Many Worlds: Bell's Theorem indicates that quantum mechanics can exhibit non-locality, meaning that changes in one particle can instantly affect another. Many Worlds does not adequately explain how such non-local correlations work across different worlds. 5.Measurement Problem: Bell's Theorem assumes a specific way measurements affect outcomes, while MWI suggests that all potential outcomes exist at once. This fundamental difference might lead to contradictions with the predictions of Bell's Theorem. Does Many Worlds Violate Bell's Theorem? Yes. In my humble opinion. Conclusion: Existence of Many Worlds? No… in my humble opinion only .

This is where Brady marches his team straight down the field and throws the winning TD just before time runs out… Bell's Theorem is a fundamental result in quantum mechanics that addresses the nature of reality and the relationship between particles. It shows that if certain conditions (local realism) are true, then the predictions of quantum mechanics about the behavior of particles should not hold. In simpler terms, Bell's Theorem suggests that if two particles are entangled, their properties can be correlated in ways that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables. So… 1.Local Realism: This is the idea that objects have definite properties (like position or momentum) before they are measured, and that no information can travel faster than light (locality). 2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. 3. Predictions: Bell's Theorem leads to predictions about the results of experiments that can be tested. Experiments have shown that the results align with quantum mechanics, contradicting local realism. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), proposed by Hugh Everett III, suggests that every time a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into multiple branches with each possible outcome realized in its own world. This interpretation provides a way to understand quantum mechanics without the need for wave function collapse. Conclusion 1. No Collapse of the Wave Function. In Many Worlds, the wave function never collapses; all outcomes exist simultaneously in separate worlds. This differs from the assumptions in Bell's Theorem, which relies on a single outcome occurring when a measurement is made. 2. Independence of Worlds: Each branch of the universe in MWI operates independently. Since the outcomes in different worlds do not influence each other, this independence may lead to a violation of the correlations described by Bell's Theorem. 3.Lack of Local Hidden Variables: Bell's Theorem suggests that if local hidden variables exist, they should account for the correlations observed. MWI denies the existence of hidden variables altogether, which may contradict the framework of Bell's Theorem. 4. Non-Locality and Many Worlds: Bell's Theorem indicates that quantum mechanics can exhibit non-locality, meaning that changes in one particle can instantly affect another. Many Worlds does not adequately explain how such non-local correlations work across different worlds. 5.Measurement Problem: Bell's Theorem assumes a specific way measurements affect outcomes, while MWI suggests that all potential outcomes exist at once. This fundamental difference might lead to contradictions with the predictions of Bell's Theorem. Does Many Worlds Violate Bell's Theorem? Yes. In my humble opinion. Conclusion: Existence of Many Worlds? No… in my humble opinion only .

That's just word fluff. Fair enough... If you'd like, I can give you at least five, or as many reasons as you'd like, why local realism violates Bell's Theorem. Then if you want, we can discuss, and poke holes in some of the "iffy" reasons why local realism does not violate Bell's Theorem ("iffy" in my opinion only! Humble opinion is more appropriate, considering the arguments showing why local realism does not necessarily violate Bells's Theorem were developed by world class physicists who have forgotten more about physics than I will ever know!) .

I direct you to my earlier comment: In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local. The wave function collapse is not local and is not invariant. At the plank scale quantum gravity enters the picture and spacetime exhibits a discrete structure, a virtual head-on-collision with classical relativity.

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ? Both seem very hand wavy to me. My intent is to use words as they are generally defined by the standard model. However, the further down the rabbit hole this material finds itself the closer it gets to philosophical terminology.

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?) Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames. They aren’t? Are any particles real? The wave function collapse is non-invariant... one reason that comes right to mind is "it's" observer dependent. The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results... so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame. Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer dependent. How could we ever know? Posted just now Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer independent!!!!!! sorry I'm at work so my responses are not vetted at the time of posting. not enough time for both.

Hence the word "theoretical" in front of physics, and my use of the word "opinion." Your point is a perfectly valid one and well taken. We have no real information, and we have no real tools at our disposal, for measuring or detecting the real or base one reality. In my Opinion, we never will. In my opinion reality is not a concept we can understand, or ever have the ability to do so...

Not at all, "plauseable" is not a word. Touché In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local. The wave function collapse is not local and is not invariant. At the plank scale quantum gravity enters the picture and spacetime exhibits a discrete structure, a virtual head-on-collision with classical relativity. The idea of a multiverse is great fun. In my mind it is pure fiction. But that's just one man's opinion.

In my humble opinion I think the only way the multiverse can exist is through simulation. The wave function collapse is neither real or local. The particles are not real. I know the math shows it to be a plauseable (too strong a word?) outcome, but there are many rabbit holes involved and they always seem to end with a convoluted construct... Especially in the multiverse! 😉

Wondering how people feel about Stephen Wolfram, the Runiad,rulial space, and computational reducibility? Just curious...