At 14:48 29/10/03 +0100, "scerir" <scerir.domain.name.hidden>
everything-list.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>Bruno Marchal:
>
> > In Bohm's theory there is no collapse of the wave.
>
>No collapse of the wave-function takes place upon measurement.
>One must obtain, nevertheless, the "reduced" wave-function of the
>system. Once a specific result has been obtained in a measurement,
>only that term (of the global, universal superposition) counts.
>This is a sort of "effective" or, better, "pragmatic" collapse.
OK, although in principle the collapse could be considered as non
effective, because if you "erase" the information you get from the measurement,
in principle you can re-establish the interferences (quantum erasing has been
tested experimentally, but of course not by an observer on hims/herself).
> > So it is indeed as deterministic as Everett formulation of QM.
>
>Are they both non-local, at least in principle? I'm asking this
>because, usually, I read that MWI is local, and that seems to me
>very very strange, just because of the "split". I also read that
>the Bohmian theory is non-local (though this original non-locality
>is almost, but not entirely, suppressed by the general quantum
>"equilibrium" condition).
Bohm is admittedly non local, and indeed Bohm's proposal
is somewhat difficult to sustain in the relativistic frame (of course
some people makes try ...).
Everett is local, as he realized himself, and this has been very
well explained by Deutsch. Basically there is no splitting but
differentiation.
See also
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#local
for argument in favor of locality by a "splitter".
Now "locality" is a tricky word, and I can find sens to it such that
Everett and comp are highly NON local from the first person
point of view (like comp indeed).
Regards,
bruno
Received on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 10:17:40 PST