- #1

- 1,219

- 72

This thread is a split-off of this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-macro-objects-get-entangled.946927/page-2#post-5997089

So my issue is this: if, for convenience, we use a Copenhagen interpretation, and we measure an observable WF ##\alpha |A \rangle + \beta |B \rangle##, then, if the measured eigenvector will be ##|A \rangle##, is it

@stevendaryl argues in the other thread that if the measument was fully dependent of the history of the universe, this would imply hidden variables, which are not possible according to Bell ineq.

But if it was the other way round, that the measurement outcome determined the history of the universe as much as the history of the universe determined the measurement outcome, it would perhaps not have to be in conflict with Bell anymore? (because there are no hidden variables involved in the usual sense?)

I am not familiar with the relationship between measured outcomes (on a macro-level) and micro-outcomes. That is why I resorted to CI; to approach it more generally is ok with me.

You could also formulate it thus:

Pff. I'm glad I have managed to put it into words (somewhat).

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-macro-objects-get-entangled.946927/page-2#post-5997089

So my issue is this: if, for convenience, we use a Copenhagen interpretation, and we measure an observable WF ##\alpha |A \rangle + \beta |B \rangle##, then, if the measured eigenvector will be ##|A \rangle##, is it

*possible*that if the measured value had been ##|B \rangle##, that the history of the universe would have been different?@stevendaryl argues in the other thread that if the measument was fully dependent of the history of the universe, this would imply hidden variables, which are not possible according to Bell ineq.

But if it was the other way round, that the measurement outcome determined the history of the universe as much as the history of the universe determined the measurement outcome, it would perhaps not have to be in conflict with Bell anymore? (because there are no hidden variables involved in the usual sense?)

I am not familiar with the relationship between measured outcomes (on a macro-level) and micro-outcomes. That is why I resorted to CI; to approach it more generally is ok with me.

You could also formulate it thus:

**if**I am in a history where I measure outcome ##|B \rangle##,*('in which ways') would this history***how much***from a history in which I measure outcome ##|A \rangle##?***differ**Pff. I'm glad I have managed to put it into words (somewhat).

Last edited: