I think that restore locality (or confirming nonlocality) by means of
the Many Worlds Interpretation ( I say MWI, not the original Everett's
Relative States Interpretation) is a contradiction in terms.
Nothing is more nonlocal than the Many Worlds!
Except, perhaps, the weird Many Minds Interpretation!
The Relational Interpretation (Rovelli), the Chameleon Interpretation
(Accardi), the Informational Interpretation (Adami, Cerf),
the Ithaca Interpretation (Mermin)
are stronger attempts (in my opinion) to undestand
the s.c. nonlocality (non-separability).
[Tipler says - in quant-ph/0003146 - that at spacelike separation
the measuring operators commute. Is it true? I'm not sure.]
Note that Bell's locality condition was analyzed during 1994
by Jarrett and shown to be equivalent to the conjunction of two
conditions. The violation of the first would permit the transmission
of a superluminal message. The violation of the second permits
the transmission (not superluminally) of a message from a
particle to the entangled one. At this time just the second
condition was shown to be violated. Not the first one. So the
the peaceful conspiracy between Q. MECH. and SP. REL. is safe.
----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Broderick <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:49 PM
Subject: Tipler disputes quantum nonlocality
> Has this url been posted yet?
> Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the
> Many-Worlds Interpretation
> Authors: Frank J. Tipler
> Comments: 7 pages in plain TeX, no figures
> Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that
> obey the laws of classical
> mechanics, while observed systems obey quantum mechanics. I show that,
> at least in the case of
> Bell's Theorem, locality is restored if observed and observer are both
> assumed to obey quantum
> mechanics, as in the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Using the MWI, I
> show that the apparently
> "non-local" expectation value for the product of the spins of two
> widely separated particles --- the
> "quantum" part of Bell's Theorem --- is really due to a series of
> purely local measurements.
> Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:42 MDT