Quantum Entanglement - chatty or silent at FTL

[p1t1o]

3 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Science is about questions not answers. In the incompleteness of answers paradoxes arise, its sometimes a good idea to be the devil's advocate in order to force the more likely theory to come up with irrefutable proof and to close up on its holes.

Eeeeeeehhhhh....I dunno, that hurts to read. I've heard the same sort of thing from people obsessed with BS pseudoscience.

But yeah, the quantum realm, and its relationship to SR and classical physics (who came up with the term "classical", its just so perfect!) are where physics starts to collide with philosophy, which always has interesting results. For example, determinism - is the universe deterministic or not? An important question in physics. But one that has enormous moral implications.

For the record, IMHO:

The universe is wholly and fully deterministic.

FTL comms is impossible.

[Backwards] Time travel is impossible. Time travel to the future is already possible.

Causality cannot be violated in any physical system.

[PB666]

4 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Eeeeeeehhhhh....I dunno, that hurts to read. I've heard the same sort of thing from people obsessed with BS pseudoscience.

But yeah, the quantum realm, and its relationship to SR and classical physics (who came up with the term "classical", its just so perfect!) are where physics starts to collide with philosophy, which always has interesting results. For example, determinism - is the universe deterministic or not? An important question in physics. But one that has enormous moral implications.

For the record, IMHO:

The universe is wholly and fully deterministic.

FTL comms is impossible.

[Backwards] Time travel is impossible. Time travel to the future is already possible.

Causality cannot be violated in any physical system.

Yeah but how sure are you of this?

So you believe in the pilot-wave theory of determinism or do you have some alternative deterministic model?

See there are always questions.

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Yeah but how sure are you of this?

So you believe in the pilot-wave theory of determinism or do you have some alternative deterministic model?

See there are always questions.

I'm not, its just my "gut" feeling, the same as I have "gut" feelings about how pool balls will bounce of each other.

Fully aware that this sort of intuition is entirely insubmissable in quantum court, I've seen just about enough of quantum physics to know that you can basically forget any predisposed assumptions based on what "seems right".

Of course there are always questions, thats not exactly profound.

[rtxoff]

Something is very wrong with the universe. Nothing seems right. 

[K^2]

On 6/20/2016 at 9:13 AM, p1t1o said:

The universe is wholly and fully deterministic.

FTL comms is impossible.

[Backwards] Time travel is impossible. Time travel to the future is already possible.

Causality cannot be violated in any physical system.

Error most people make is assuming that Quantum means non-deterministic. It's the most determined theory we have, because QFT tells us that all of our past future and present simply exists in its constant state in the extend of the space-time, which covers the full set of points that constitute our existence. Even classical mechanics can't give you that, because there are always stupid questions like, "How do we know, something won't disturb it from 'outside'?" Or, "What was before the Big Bang?" These simply aren't issues in QFT.

Most of the problems people who just read about QM have are with Copenhagen Interpretation. Frankly, so do most physicists who study quantum mechanics. It's an antiquated and mostly useless interpretation. It's still strictly deterministic in the big picture, but looks like hidden parameters and/or voodoo locally, which is bad. This is why I've recommended looking at QM from perspective of Many Worlds Interpretation in this thread already. There is no such bs in MWI. It is clear why it's 100% deterministic and most of the intuition you get about QM in MWI is correct. These are two huge wins right off the bat. Not that it doesn't cause some misunderstandings occasionally, but give it a break, it's still QM.

As for time travel, it's allowed by gauge freedoms. You're free to believe that no practical way to time-travel exists, and I wouldn't be able to argue with it, but Universe is expanding faster than speed of light. So signals can clearly propagate over great distance FTL, and that already means that there are frames of reference in which parts of universe are traveling backwards in time. Yes, not anything you could use practically due to distances involved, but unless you want to join the likes of Flat-Earthers, you'll need to find a way to incorporate these facts into your understanding of reality.

Local causality is a different matter, though. As far as we know, it cannot be violated. Which is good to know. Local causality violations would be rather bad for determinism.

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Error most people make is assuming that Quantum means non-deterministic. It's the most determined theory we have, because QFT tells us that all of our past future and present simply exists in its constant state in the extend of the space-time, which covers the full set of points that constitute our existence. Even classical mechanics can't give you that, because there are always stupid questions like, "How do we know, something won't disturb it from 'outside'?" Or, "What was before the Big Bang?" These simply aren't issues in QFT.

Most of the problems people who just read about QM have are with Copenhagen Interpretation. Frankly, so do most physicists who study quantum mechanics. It's an antiquated and mostly useless interpretation. It's still strictly deterministic in the big picture, but looks like hidden parameters and/or voodoo locally, which is bad. This is why I've recommended looking at QM from perspective of Many Worlds Interpretation in this thread already. There is no such bs in MWI. It is clear why it's 100% deterministic and most of the intuition you get about QM in MWI is correct. These are two huge wins right off the bat. Not that it doesn't cause some misunderstandings occasionally, but give it a break, it's still QM.

As for time travel, it's allowed by gauge freedoms. You're free to believe that no practical way to time-travel exists, and I wouldn't be able to argue with it, but Universe is expanding faster than speed of light. So signals can clearly propagate over great distance FTL, and that already means that there are frames of reference in which parts of universe are traveling backwards in time. Yes, not anything you could use practically due to distances involved, but unless you want to join the likes of Flat-Earthers, you'll need to find a way to incorporate these facts into your understanding of reality.

Local causality is a different matter, though. As far as we know, it cannot be violated. Which is good to know. Local causality violations would be rather bad for determinism.

I like the copenhagen interpretation.

[K^2]

Just now, PB666 said:

I like the copenhagen interpretation.

And some people like dub-step. I won't understand either, but taste is one of these things that defies explanation.

Practical side of the matter, however, is that you are making a lot of rookie mistakes on QM and entanglement because you refuse to run the thought experiment through MWI.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

And some people like dub-step. I won't understand either, but taste is one of these things that defies explanation.

Practical side of the matter, however, is that you are making a lot of rookie mistakes on QM and entanglement because you refuse to run the thought experiment through MWI.

One of the leading physicist studying space-time basically says that the parallel universe hypothesis is nothing more than a guess. Copenhagen enterpretation is the most conservative interpretation, that is why i favor it. In this way i dont need to trouble myself with the coexistence of an infinite number of parallel universes. 

The pilot wave hypothesis has some appeal. 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by PB666

[rtxoff]

What if the speed of causality can be faster then the speed of light. What if it could be infinite?
It wouldn't allow paradox situations to happen. Not sure what this means for determinism though.

 

[PB666]

15 minutes ago, gpisic said:

What if the speed of causality can be faster then the speed of light. What if it could be infinite?
It wouldn't allow paradox situations to happen. Not sure what this means for determinism though.

 

It can if you allow quantum tunneling in rekativistic space-time  there are some string theory interpretations that allow this. What is the shape of quantum space-time, if it can assume any shape then one shape could be infintiscimally small in two dimensions and infinite in a third, in which case such 'spooky action at a distance' could be allowed via channels that appear at great infrequency (quantum time is very small so infrequent at that scale could be frequent at our scale).. The suspicion is that quantum space-time flattens because of e = mc^2 contributions, but shape is probably plastic. I frankly don't know the answer, i prefer that more testing is done. 

[p1t1o]

@K^2 Makes sense, but:

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

...Universe is expanding faster than speed of light. So signals can clearly propagate over great distance FTL...

Are we sure this follows? Signals? We only know this through inference, nothing can be sent or received due to this phenomenon.

 

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

... and that already means that there are frames of reference in which parts of universe are traveling backwards in time.

Well, in a manner of speaking, relative to our position. Travel between here and there (and hence, travel between two different times) is not possible. Currently.

 

[K^2]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

One of the leading physicist studying space-time basically says that the parallel universe hypothesis is nothing more than a guess.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with MWI. There is nothing in MWI about parallel universes. MWI is mathematically solid and is equivalent to Copenhagen. Any complaints you have towards MWI go for Copenhagen as well. That's why they are called interpretations. They aren't separate theories. They are just different ways to assign intuition to the same physics. When you understand why collapse is equivalent to world-splitting mathematically, you'll have a much better understanding of QM.

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Are we sure this follows? Signals? We only know this through inference, nothing can be sent or received due to this phenomenon.

A propagating signal is basically anything that can carry information that's moving with respect to some point of reference. If it's moving FTL, then it's an FTL signal. Matter moving away at FTL speeds certainly counts. It's a separate issue that it took Big Bang to generate. Like I said, there might very well not be a practical way. But it is part of underlying physics.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

And that has absolutely nothing to do with MWI. There is nothing in MWI about parallel universes. MWI is mathematically solid and is equivalent to Copenhagen. Any complaints you have towards MWI go for Copenhagen as well. That's why they are called interpretations. They aren't separate theories. They are just different ways to assign intuition to the same physics. When you understand why collapse is equivalent to world-splitting mathematically, you'll have a much better understanding of QM.

Of course i am assuming you are referring multiple worlds interpretation. I understand you favorbit and i will not attempt to change your mind.

Again you and i are not going to agree on this, so give up trying now. I consider it a big fanciful guess, one thats promoted by some big names, but none the less these names have been accussed of guessing. 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-philosophy-of-guessing-has-harmed-physics-expert-says/

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by PB666

[K^2]

It's not a guess. It's mathematically equivalent. Do you understand a difference between a guess and a theorem? Or is mathematical theorem also a guess to you?

[PB666]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

It's not a guess. It's mathematically equivalent. Do you understand a difference between a guess and a theorem? Or is mathematical theorem also a guess to you?

It is a guess, there is no emperical data that supports it. It causes an inifinite number of unobserved parallel universes that it does not resolve and it gives no particularly good explanation on how they resolved. 

[K^2]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

It is a guess, there is no emperical data that supports it. It causes an inifinite number of unobserved parallel universes that it does not resolve and it gives no particularly good explanation on how they resolved. 

Neither is there empirical data that supports collapse, because there isn't even empirical support for wave function, so as there to be something to collapse. Learn what an interpretation of a theory means.

Also learn the difference between scientific theory, which requires support, and a theorem that applies to said theory. Later tells you that if you trust the theory, you trust results. If you don't trust MWI, you don't trust Quantum Mechanics at all. Every single confirmation of QM in general is the confirmation for MWI. Or Copenhagen. Or any other interpretation you want to dress the theory in. None of them are any more valid than any other. None of them can have more or less support than another. They are either all valid or all invalid. That's how interpretations work.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Neither is there empirical data that supports collapse, because there isn't even empirical support for wave function, so as there to be something to collapse. Learn what an interpretation of a theory means.

Also learn the difference between scientific theory, which requires support, and a theorem that applies to said theory. Later tells you that if you trust the theory, you trust results. If you don't trust MWI, you don't trust Quantum Mechanics at all. Every single confirmation of QM in general is the confirmation for MWI. Or Copenhagen. Or any other interpretation you want to dress the theory in. None of them are any more valid than any other. None of them can have more or less support than another. They are either all valid or all invalid. That's how interpretations work.

Occams razor places the simplist solution, in this case propogating an infinite number of universes is not simple its complicated. 

[K^2]

15 hours ago, PB666 said:

Occams razor places the simplist solution, in this case propogating an infinite number of universes is not simple its complicated. 

Occam's Razor is a guessing tool. I thought you didn't like guessing. Not to mention that there is only one universe in MWI and statement that collapse is easier is silly when you can't even explain at what time during measurement the collapse happens. Don't forget delayed choice quantum eraser.

When we know in advance that all interpretations are equivalent, the easier interpretation isn't the one that is easier to explain to someone who's new to the theory. It's the one that helps you make better predictions with less work. This is why we teach variables and vectors in math when simple algebra is simpler. Complex tools lead to simple solutions, and MWI is one such tool. Once you understand it, you can make easy work of quantum encryption, quantum teleportation, quantum eraser, and a bunch of other experiments and practical systems which bewilder a lot of experts. Now that's a razor I can get behind.

[PB666]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Occam's Razor is a guessing tool. I thought you didn't like guessing. Not to mention that there is only one universe in MWI and statement that collapse is easier is silly when you can't even explain at what time during measurement the collapse happens. Don't forget delayed choice quantum eraser.

When we know in advance that all interpretations are equivalent, the easier interpretation isn't the one that is easier to explain to someone who's new to the theory. It's the one that helps you make better predictions with less work. This is why we teach variables and vectors in math when simple algebra is simpler. Complex tools lead to simple solutions, and MWI is one such tool. Once you understand it, you can make easy work of quantum encryption, quantum teleportation, quantum eraser, and a bunch of other experiments and practical systems which bewilder a lot of experts. Now that's a razor I can get behind.

Occam's razor turns out to be very useful here, what do you do with an infinite number of universe once they spontaneously are created and what are their individual fates, niether of which MWI can explain because it has no data on the matter, which means there can be an infinite number of convoluted explanations. 

CI is very simple . . . . quantum  uncertainty exists, the universe is non-deterministic at that scale, but fate is resolved, we just don't know how.  As i have repeated made the point key to the mess is quantum space time achetecture, some call it quantum foam, but we do not know with any certainty. We know its important because it interacts with both mass and light (warping of space time) and they interact to warp it so since we don't know how the foam gets laid out or propagates through space, its very convinient to let the resolution of uncertianty stay in local unseen phenomena until this behavior is resolved. No need to fabricate a infinity of universes per quantum moment to explain it. Yes, i know quantum states superposition, but quantum space-time is the deepest and most fundemental property of the universe if it exists. 

[K^2]

There are no universes created in MWI. There is just one universe. Even "worlds" aren't really being created. They are simply orthogonal projections of the global wave function onto observer states. Again, you are not just drawing, but fervently arguing for conclusions on subjects you haven't bothered to even learn basics about.

So what we really have is MWI, which gives a simple, fully deterministic explanation, or Copenhagen, which has a full paragraphs of, "we don't knows" just in the explanation. You are holding that razor by the wrong end, I'm afraid.

[PB666]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

There are no universes created in MWI. There is just one universe. Even "worlds" aren't really being created. They are simply orthogonal projections of the global wave function onto observer states. Again, you are not just drawing, but fervently arguing for conclusions on subjects you haven't bothered to even learn basics about.

So what we really have is MWI, which gives a simple, fully deterministic explanation, or Copenhagen, which has a full paragraphs of, "we don't knows" just in the explanation. You are holding that razor by the wrong end, I'm afraid.

 MWI is just what it says and just hiw hawkings describes its and its a guess. MWI is equivikent to the planet vulcan, its a guess that is most likely wrong. Copenhagen makes non pretense that it doesn't know the resolution answer, which is what i like,mscientist should answer 'we don't know' instead of saying 'there must be a vukcan out there we don't see'. 

MWI is not needed. 

[PB666]

Although this is a massive deviation from the topic.

CI - wavefunction collapse - assumption of wavefunction collapse is ad hoc

MWI - all aspects of the wave function exists as many-worlds. 

Lets give an example, in this double slit experiment we kepp the verticle axis confined, allow the verticle axis to represent diversity. Our unit length is the planks sclae (l). The projection is a meter away from the slit. The projection is then a probability function of with 1/l as the number of bins. In that moment the states of everything along that meter of length are all being measures, because of nonuniformity in quantum foam where the photons land and the various distances travel there 10-10/(planks time) variation in time.. There forvwe have a change of state matrix just for a local event of MWI with rough 10^50 different possibilites, of course we have to add back in the horizontal component, etc. It we dont even examine the whole universe but only focus on local interactions on approaches and almost infinite number of parallel outcomes within tiny amounts of time.

Quote

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.

Quote

MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[2] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.[7] - wikipedia

This is almost identicle tobwhat Stevn Hawking said on his PBS special ,genius'. 

The niity griity between the two is that copenhagen infers a wavefunction collapse, but the reality is that there is an undefined resolution of the information that is in the wavefunction attributed as a state change in observation. The wavefunction has to change as the particle is observed, the question is how, what process occurs. Process is sonething that occurs through time, but Carlo Ravelli basically argues that at this level ignore time, just pretend it does not exist, and so a photon could be in all places at once, representing  the wavefunction, but the wavefunction must resolve because in space-time a photon is detected. Therefore copenhagen basically has it that in this non-temperol roll through all possibilities one has to be plucked as a processional reference. The buggaboo in the interpretation is that suppose the screen is 1000 ly away, the processing of the event may be timeless but we also know that the timeless photon has traveled 1000 ly, but in the last moment can decide to be anywhere along a thousand light year wide screen. This seems to be problemation until one realizes that the quantum spacetime foam is really plastic, it could accomidate such resolution, but that does not mean it does.

The MWI interpretation would have the creation of more universes as the photon traveled away from the double slit, really ancient photons could have a near infinite number of worlds just devoted to their fates.  This concept is known as universal decoherance, where over time the universes no longer coincide, but drift from each other,msonthat some MWI have added another non-occamic process that cohers the universes together. 

 

[K^2]

19 hours ago, PB666 said:

Although this is a massive deviation from the topic.

Sure, but it's a useful one for understanding the topic. If you understand all interpretations, you shouldn't have any trouble sorting through entanglement and the non-communication. Non-locality is trickier, but this is still the correct route to understanding more about it.

19 hours ago, PB666 said:

CI - wavefunction collapse - assumption of wavefunction collapse is ad hoc

MWI - all aspects of the wave function exists as many-worlds.

Even for a single sentence, this is a bad explanation for many-worlds. Suppose, I have a pair of spin-1/2 particles. First one has spin along z, second along x. I can interpret this state as many-worlds. For example, I can interpret it as worlds where measurement is taken along the z axis. In which case I have two worlds. First has states +1, +1, and second has states +1, -1. But I can also interpret this as worlds where measurement is taken along the x-axis. Now the two worlds are +1, +1 and -1, +1. And I haven't even taken any measurements yet. This is just an interpretation of superposition. Purely mathematical, mind.

The correct one sentence description is, "MWI - superposition sets of wavefunction can be interpreted as worlds." Which isn't even a hypothesis, because it's a purely mathematical interpretation.

The actual hypothetical part of MWI comes where it states that the square of the weights of the worlds containing observer is proportional to the probabilities of the observation made by observer. And this mirrors perfectly the CI's square norm probability on measurement. Again, they are mathematically identical, so not a single experiment could possibly distinguish between the two.

I won't to be perfectly clear about this. Worlds in MWI are not the hypothetical part. Delayed choice quantum eraser proves beyond shadow of the doubt that this information is preserved, and interpretation of the superposition as worlds is purely for convenience. It's only the measurement part that is part of the hypothesis of the theory, and that part is shared with CI.

And yes, I'm well aware that there are a whole bunch of really bad explanations/definitions out there. Especially if you open up Wikipedia. Take it from somebody who actually studied quantum physics for a decade.

19 hours ago, PB666 said:

The niity griity between the two is that copenhagen infers a wavefunction collapse, but the reality is that there is an undefined resolution of the information that is in the wavefunction attributed as a state change in observation.

This is where you are making the critical mistake. You are confusing measurement and interpretation of a measurement. There are absolutely, one hundred percent deterministic definitions of the dynamics during measurement. One can write out an exact Hamiltonian for a double-slit experiment, for example. Although, it's an ugly monstrocity. And while I'm well aware that you don't know how it works, there are exact formulae that tell you what happens to the system during that measurement. There is no collapse. There is no collapse that happens as direct result of a measurement. The system simply goes from one precisely defined state to another precisely defined state. Collapse is interpretation of what happens when an observer gets involved. And the fact that you have to invent loss of information to explain it is very, very bad from perspective of every single law of physics.

For example, given a collection of states with density matrix  ρ, the rate of change of entropy under any conservative Hamiltonian is d<S>/dt = Tr[ρ,ln(ρ)] = 0. In other words, entropy of a quantum system cannot change under any interaction. Except, it somehow magically increases during measurements. CI throws in an arbitrary collapse. Information is literally erased according to theory, introducing absolutely irreversible processes. Except, they are irreversible under magical and unexplained conditions, precisely because CI never bothers to explain what actually happens to that information. Delayed choice quantum eraser demonstrates this arbitrary quality in when information is lost in CI. In contrast, MWI tells you exactly where that information is going, which allows it to preserve reversible time, among other advantages.

 

The only further thing I can recommend you is stop reading Wikipedia and popular science literature. You are not going to learn anything about QM that way. Not without learning the basics. Open up any half-decent text-book on QM and learn how the measurements are actually performed. Look up EPR experiment, for example, and learn enough QM to be able to write out the Hamiltonian for it. It clearly demonstrates how the measurements actually transforms the system, and how collapse plays absolutely no part in it until you throw in an attempt to interpret the observations. CI and MWI are not features of the theory. They are tools for understanding how quantum systems correlate with observations we are making.

When it comes to quantum teleportation, quantum encryption, and just about anything that has to do with entanglement, CI is not intuitive. MWI is. When you learn to start making correct predictions on quantum systems based on your favorite interpretation, you can start arguing about it. So far, you've demonstrated inability to understand something as simple as no-communication theorem. Which is like the entry level understanding of entanglement. Why do you keep arguing and insisting that your way is better when you have absolutely no results to back this up with?

[PB666]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

Sure, but it's a useful one for understanding the topic. If you understand all interpretations, you shouldn't have any trouble sorting through entanglement and the non-communication. Non-locality is trickier, but this is still the correct route to understanding more about it.

Even for a single sentence, this is a bad explanation for many-worlds. Suppose, I have a pair of spin-1/2 particles. First one has spin along z, second along x. I can interpret this state as many-worlds. For example, I can interpret it as worlds where measurement is taken along the z axis. In which case I have two worlds. First has states +1, +1, and second has states +1, -1. But I can also interpret this as worlds where measurement is taken along the x-axis. Now the two worlds are +1, +1 and -1, +1. And I haven't even taken any measurements yet. This is just an interpretation of superposition. Purely mathematical, mind.

The correct one sentence description is, "MWI - superposition sets of wavefunction can be interpreted as worlds." Which isn't even a hypothesis, because it's a purely mathematical interpretation.

The actual hypothetical part of MWI comes where it states that the square of the weights of the worlds containing observer is proportional to the probabilities of the observation made by observer. And this mirrors perfectly the CI's square norm probability on measurement. Again, they are mathematically identical, so not a single experiment could possibly distinguish between the two.

I won't to be perfectly clear about this. Worlds in MWI are not the hypothetical part. Delayed choice quantum eraser proves beyond shadow of the doubt that this information is preserved, and interpretation of the superposition as worlds is purely for convenience. It's only the measurement part that is part of the hypothesis of the theory, and that part is shared with CI.

And yes, I'm well aware that there are a whole bunch of really bad explanations/definitions out there. Especially if you open up Wikipedia. Take it from somebody who actually studied quantum physics for a decade.

This is where you are making the critical mistake. You are confusing measurement and interpretation of a measurement. There are absolutely, one hundred percent deterministic definitions of the dynamics during measurement. One can write out an exact Hamiltonian for a double-slit experiment, for example. Although, it's an ugly monstrocity. And while I'm well aware that you don't know how it works, there are exact formulae that tell you what happens to the system during that measurement. There is no collapse. There is no collapse that happens as direct result of a measurement. The system simply goes from one precisely defined state to another precisely defined state. Collapse is interpretation of what happens when an observer gets involved. And the fact that you have to invent loss of information to explain it is very, very bad from perspective of every single law of physics.

For example, given a collection of states with density matrix  ρ, the rate of change of entropy under any conservative Hamiltonian is d<S>/dt = Tr[ρ,ln(ρ)] = 0. In other words, entropy of a quantum system cannot change under any interaction. Except, it somehow magically increases during measurements. CI throws in an arbitrary collapse. Information is literally erased according to theory, introducing absolutely irreversible processes. Except, they are irreversible under magical and unexplained conditions, precisely because CI never bothers to explain what actually happens to that information. Delayed choice quantum eraser demonstrates this arbitrary quality in when information is lost in CI. In contrast, MWI tells you exactly where that information is going, which allows it to preserve reversible time, among other advantages.

 

The only further thing I can recommend you is stop reading Wikipedia and popular science literature. You are not going to learn anything about QM that way. Not without learning the basics. Open up any half-decent text-book on QM and learn how the measurements are actually performed. Look up EPR experiment, for example, and learn enough QM to be able to write out the Hamiltonian for it. It clearly demonstrates how the measurements actually transforms the system, and how collapse plays absolutely no part in it until you throw in an attempt to interpret the observations. CI and MWI are not features of the theory. They are tools for understanding how quantum systems correlate with observations we are making.

When it comes to quantum teleportation, quantum encryption, and just about anything that has to do with entanglement, CI is not intuitive. MWI is. When you learn to start making correct predictions on quantum systems based on your favorite interpretation, you can start arguing about it. So far, you've demonstrated inability to understand something as simple as no-communication theorem. Which is like the entry level understanding of entanglement. Why do you keep arguing and insisting that your way is better when you have absolutely no results to back this up with?

I understand what you are saying and yes i've seen the complex math, the original proponent called it a metatheory, but changing the name doesn't change the problem, once the slit is passed in space-time. Insult or no insult,  a photon that passes through the slit 13.7 billion years ago, you have the possibility of a near infinite number of outcomes that begin to accumulate, where is the information stored in the system, including photons that are absorbed moments after they are produced and photons that will travel to the 'end' of the universe via the same wavefunction. You yourself do not have the ability to do the math, no one does. If you say you can i simply say false. Don't argue with me, cause I won't believe otherwise.

The problem here you say wiki is wrong, that's OK, but I was using it to verify what Hawkings said himself on TV, apparently thats not OK with you either, so apparently you believe a MWI that the top physicist who believe, but you believe something different. This has its own wavefunction.

First a minority of physicist favor MWI, second, you think a-hah I can create a mathematical solution and if I can it must be the answer. And while it is true mathematically consistent solutions can be favored over those that cannot, there's a saying garbage in garbage out. And when we talk about superpositions, suffice it to say the most intelligent physicist cannot and does not have all the information, because simply stated the fundementals of the universe do not lend themselves currently to concrete answers. I seriously doubt they ever will. Having done a ton of monte-carlo analysis, the best statistical formulas typically show their weaknesses when confronted with actual data. If you have the complete data set, which I assure you no physicist has, you can make perfect statistics (like fisher exact test) if you have a powerful enough computer to fill out all the possibilities and compare with the best held formulas. These become just guesses, and in doing so you realize where the formula's begin to fail.

Here-in lies the essential difference CI makes a minimum number of conclusions and owes the fact it is incomplete. I think that is a really justified conclusion because although things like double slit and diffraction occur as a result of electrostatic interactions, space-time is not simply electrostatic, and something like a pilot wave theory could be correct. Im not saying it is, and i'm not arguing that MWI is an impossible explanation, but I'm arguing that based upon what we know CI appears to best represent the state, and only because it is caual partial indeterminancy.  When uncertainty is explained in 3 different major camps and physicist are divided in good lots between these camps, thats pretty good grounds for standing back and waiting for better science to be done. 

This is the same problem we have with the Cannae drive, you said basically that you knew that a different affect could not exist, either it was basically emitting matter or that some measurement was messed up, then you belittled the proponents for not understanding momentum or quantum mechanics. To date your interpretation is not supported, two papers have been published on the cause, but you don't see me waving these around in the air as solution. Science is not 'I know', science is 'I question and then I test to find answers'.

The same thing we catch with FTL communications and quantum entanglement, though I suspect it cannot be used to communicate, the issues relies in the stuff above. And MWI is a metatheory that can explain why it cannot be used to communicate, the problem is that a lot of papers are finding ways of excepting this, somehow you seem to be waving them off.

This I why I said a long time ago you like to concretize problems, its probably a mechanism you have created in your mind to make the world easier to understand, but the world is not concrete, and you are simply guessing.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by PB666

[cfds]

The reason why only "a minority of physicist favor MWI" is just a consequence of it being misconstrued to mean "there are a bunch of parallel universes where Hitler killed Marilyn Monroe, and they are just one malfunctioning teleporter away". For most application of QM, it does not matter whether receiving the measuring result "A" means "the wave function collapsed into state A, the probability of that was pA" or "the experiment and experimentor entered a state sqrt(pA)*A + sqrt(1-A)*anti-A and the experimentor's conscious is following the first path". In both cases, "A" is observed. If you want to analyse delayed double-slit experiments, MWI is helpful. In other cases, it might be helpful to avoid possible misunderstandings and not talk about parallel worlds. Take from it what you want.

But if MWI denies a certain kind of FTL communications, there is no way that a CI analysis will show that it works since the basic math is still the same.