Question about entanglement over large distances

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrfuca99
  • Start date Start date
jrfuca99
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Suppose that Bob and Alice decides to do a quantum experiment, more precisely, The Shroedinger Cat Experiment. Alice goes to the Andromeda Galaxy, and wait for Bob’s results.

According with the MWI, the wave function never collapses, suppose that in one world Bob found the cat alive, in the other world, Bob found the cat dead.

In one branch Bob send to Alice the message “ I found the cat alive” and in the other branch, Bob send to Alice the message “I found the cat dead”.

If the splitting of the wave function is only local to Bob, Alice will receive at the same time both messages, so she thought that the cat is in a superposition of dead and alive. That is not possible, because the cat after opening the box, must be alive or dead. Conclusion, the wave function split also the Andromeda Galaxy. There are then, Two Alices, One that receive the message saying the cat is alive, and the other Alice who receive the message the cat is dead.

To receive a message, the Andromeda Galaxy must be in the same light cone of Bob

My question is :

  • Is this correct ? The Andromeda Galaxy also split ?
  • The splitting universe is only what is in Bob’s future light cone ? Or also the whole universe including those zones outside Bob’s light cone also split ?.
  • According with the MWI, the energy is conserved, the energy of the new branches of the wave function comes at expense of the already existing branches. What is the mechanism by which the new branches take the energy of the existing ones before performing the quantum experiment ?

Moderator note: Copied from a New Member Introduction thread. Please be kind to our new member.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Moderator's note: Thread moved to the QM interpretations subforum since it asks about a particular interpretation (the MWI).
 
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