Does the MWI Affect Results in EPR Type Experiments Across Vast Distances?

nrqed
Science Advisor
Messages
3,762
Reaction score
297
Hopefully, this caught the attention of VanEsch.. :biggrin:


Let's say Bob and Alice do an EPR type of experiment. A gazillion entangled pair of photons is sent to Bob and Alice who are 1000 light years apart. They measure the spin of the photons. They do not know yet that this violates Bell's inequalities because they haven't comapred notes yet. Fine.

Now Bob writes down his gazillion results on a piece of paper. he places that in a vault. Then he e-mails to Joe (who is stationed in Andromeda's galaxy) the results. And he Faxes the results to Tonya, who is on the other side of the Milky way (by the time these guys receive the results, Bob and Alice will be connected causally).

Then he goes to visit Alice and compares notes.

In the MWI interpertration, what happens? What happens when Bob and Alice compares notes (to them as well as the results in the vault, in Tonya and Joe's mind. etc). Does something special happens when Bob and Alice have waited long enough to be connected causally (even before they meet in person) or only when they meet and compare notes?

Just curious...


Pat
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top