Entanglement on the Many Worlds model

[jeremyfiennes]

TL;DR Summary

Entanglement's non-locality depends on the collapse of the common wave function. The Many Worlds model has no collapse. Does it also have no entanglement?

Entanglement's non-locality ('spooky action at a distance') depends on the instantaneous collapse at all points in space of the entangled particles' common wave function. The Many Worlds model has no wave function collapse. Does it also have no entanglement?

 

[Nugatory]

Your premise is wrong: entanglement does not depend on collapse.

If the wave function takes on a certain form, we have entanglement; MWI and collapse both work just fine on that wave function.

 

[jeremyfiennes]

Entanglement itself doesn't depend on collapse. But 'spooky action at a distance' does. That is my query: how does MWI account for this?

 

[Nugatory]

Entanglement itself doesn't depend on collapse. But 'spooky action at a distance' does.

The phenomenon that people sometimes (and, in the modern view, inaccurately) describe as “spooky action at a distance” does not depend on collapse.

You can choose to describe it in terms of collapse, but it is not necessary - MWI describes it just fine without collapse. A collapse interpretation says that we start with a superposition of “A up B down” and “A down B up” and the interaction with either measuring device changes the state to either “A up, A measuring device reads up, B down, B measuring device reads down” or “A down, A measuring device reads down, B up, B measuring device reads up”. MWI says that the interaction with either measuring device changes the state to a superposition of those two states, only one of which will be observed.

 

[jeremyfiennes]

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Demystifier]

MWI does not have a spooky action at a distance. But it does not mean that MWI is local. MWI is alocal in the sense that, at the fundamental level, local objects (namely objects defined on a spacetime point) don't even exist.