A new brand of quantum entanglement from Brookhaven

https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=120816 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this

Re: Nobel prize for quantum entanglement

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:24 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> I was gratified to hear of this Nobel award:* > > > *https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/three-quantum-information-scientists-share-nobel-prize-physics/101501766 >

Nobel prize for quantum entanglement

I was gratified to hear of this Nobel award: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/three-quantum-information-scientists-share-nobel-prize-physics/101501766 Aspect and Clauser certainly deserve it for going out on a limb and proving an important result. Zeilinger was late to the party, but his

Re: Entanglement

>> locality because if things really were non-local then I don't see how we >> could understand anything until we understood everything. But as far as >> I know although Einstein found the wormhole solution that was lurking in >> his General Relativity equations he never ma

Re: Entanglement

l Relativity equations he never made a connection between that and > entanglement or locality, it was others who did that many decades after his > death. > John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > oah > &

Re: Entanglement

; *> When it's claimed that "entanglement is the glue that connects space >> with time", what does this mean? AG* > > > If entanglement does connect space with time nobody knows exactly how it > works, although there are theories, one recent one involves Einstei

Re: Entanglement

ything until we understood everything. But as far as I know although Einstein found the wormhole solution that was lurking in his General Relativity equations he never made a connection between that and entanglement or locality, it was others who did that many decades after his death. John K Clark

Re: Entanglement

Maybe Einstein wasn't wrong about locality, only about geometry. AG On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 6:46:50 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 8:20 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> When it's claimed that "entanglement is the glue that connects space &g

Re: Entanglement

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 8:20 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> When it's claimed that "entanglement is the glue that connects space > with time", what does this mean? AG* If entanglement does connect space with time nobody knows exactly how it works, although there are theories

Entanglement

When it's claimed that "entanglement is the glue that connects space with time", what does this mean? AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr

Re: Entanglement and Superposition Are Equivalent Concepts in Any Physical Theory

Superposition and entanglement are different manifestations of a quantum phase. LC On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-5 leeu...@gmail.com wrote: > May be of interest: > > Entanglement and Superposition Are Equivalent Concepts in Any Physical > Theory > > ABS

Entanglement and Superposition Are Equivalent Concepts in Any Physical Theory

May be of interest: Entanglement and Superposition Are Equivalent Concepts in Any Physical Theory ABSTRACT We prove that given any two general probabilistic theories (GPTs) the following are equivalent: (i) each theory is nonclassical, meaning that neither of their state spaces is a simplex

Re: Tardigrade​s​​ entanglement and Alcor

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 2:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *> the fact that something has a permittivity which allows it to become > entangled with an oscillator doesn't have much to do with it being alive.* I agree, but it is a dramatic demonstration that quantum weirdness can reach all the way into

Re: Tardigrade​s​​ entanglement and Alcor

it survive. By contrast ALCOR stores human brains at 77.0 Kelvin. 2) While the Tardigrade was super cold it was put into a quantum entangled state, aka a Schrodinger's cat state. Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.07978.pdf> An inter

Tardigrade​s​​ entanglement and Alcor

at 77.0 Kelvin. 2) While the Tardigrade was super cold it was put into a quantum entangled state, aka a Schrodinger's cat state. Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.07978.pdf> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis

quantum entanglement and gravity

from 0 to N. We then write the entropy as S = -k sum_n[1/n log(1/n)] which give the summation to N is S = k log(N). To see how entanglement enters into this consider the Taylor expansion of the logarithm, log(ρ) = ρ – 1 – ½(ρ – 1)^2 + ⅓(ρ – 1)^3 - … . where if the density matrix has off

How conformal gravitation conserves entanglement phase and qubits

, or extended analogue thereof, with the gauge-like SU(2,2) group of conformal gravitation. A central feature of this is this gauge-like theory conserves the entanglement structure of an associated orthogonal group or with SU(2, 2) ↔ O(15), or to take U(2,2) = SU(2,2)×U(1) we have U(2,2) ↔ SO(16

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

rsively > enumerable languages > > LC > > On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers >> >> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a >> cl

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

y 18, 2020 at 4:55:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does > though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively > enumerable languages > > LC > > On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

y 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers > > "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a classical > verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers sharing > entanglement

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

; enumerable languages > > LC > > On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers >> >> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a >> classical veri

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively enumerable languages LC On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > Quantum computing, entanglement, and t

Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a classical verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers sharing entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable languages."

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

Consciousness (and so, reality) is all about meaning reported to context. And meanings and contexts can be anything, they don't have to be spatial or temporal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:15:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/7/2019 6:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > But the point is this topic was discussed for 20 years, beginning in the > group started by Victor Stenger (Timeless Reality). Physics does not rule > backward (or downward, for

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only spatially but also temporarily? Sort of. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment indicates there is a time aspect to entanglement as well. Look that up on Wikipedia, and it is a bit odd. Quantum

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two >>> photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even >>> before the other is created, full quantum correlations we

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: /In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even before the other

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

>>> Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only >>> spatially but also temporarily? >>> >> >> Sort of. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment indicates there is a time >> aspect to entanglement as well. Look that up on Wikipedia, and it is

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

orarily? >> > > Sort of. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment indicates there is a time > aspect to entanglement as well. Look that up on Wikipedia, and it is a bit > odd. Quantum states and their entanglements are not something that exist in > space or time, but which may

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-5, Eva wrote: > > @Lawrence Crowell > > Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only > spatially but also temporarily? > Sort of. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment indicates there is a time aspect to en

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

@Lawrence Crowell Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only spatially but also temporarily? @Philip Thrift Retrocausation? So, I'm thirsty because I will drink water? This is to much for me :/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

nclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two >> photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even >> before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by >> measuring the density matrix of the two photons,

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two > photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even > before the other is created, full quantum correlat

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

*In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

This is interesting, where photons that existed at different times can be entangled. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191.pdf Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. Eisenberg Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:35:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:12:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I am not sure this make sense (with

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 14:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> Only in the sense that the biological brain has evolved through decoherence with respect to some base, but as

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, in some sense.

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always >>> isolated, in some sense. >>> >> >> >> * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, in some sense. * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED,

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:39:45 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11,

Re: Entanglement

OK. But that will be a slight dispersion. Of course some electron, going to down could appears on the up, because the “position-wave" are spread, but that should be negligible with the down/up spin prediction. > Decoherence decides that for us, and the stable basis for position > measu

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The choice of basis makes all

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>>

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 08:56, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > [big snip] > > For Bruno: > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 6:50:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Thanks for the data dump. It's way above my head, so not so far above that I > can't see the virtue of using arithmetic logic

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 08:50, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 3:19:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 8 Jun 2018, at

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > From: > >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> >>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Entanglement

> On 10 Jun 2018, at 18:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> From: >>> >>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> Are you

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 09:53:37AM -0700, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* >>> >>> >>> Erwin Schroedinger. (To AG). >>> >>

Re: Entanglement

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 01:56, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> What happened with your Ph’D? >> >> It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at the >> recievability level (I never mette them) but I

Re: Entanglement

[big snip] For Bruno: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 6:50:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *Thanks for the data dump. It's way above my head, so not so far above > that I can't see the virtue of using arithmetic logic as a starting point > for a new take on reality. I might buy the

Re: Entanglement

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 3:19:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal >> Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal > Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found >> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* *So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time? AG* Decoherence has resolved

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > > The SWE does not

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: The SWE does not give a preferred basis. Basing MWI on the Schrödinger equation runs into the basis

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 12:01:39 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > What happened with your Ph’D? > > > > It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at > the recievability level (I never

Re: Entanglement

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 09:53:37AM -0700, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > > > > > > Erwin Schroedinger. (To AG). > > > > OK, but how does one type the umlaut? AG He was more correcting

Re: Entanglement

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > What happened with your Ph’D? > > It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at the > recievability level (I never mette them) but I defended it without any > problem in France (Lille), where I got

Re: Entanglement

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was

Re: Entanglement

> On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > [snip] > >So

Re: Entanglement

> On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> >> >> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was a fallacy? >> >> Edwin Schrodinger. AG

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To > define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the >

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:52:21 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was a fallacy? >> > > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > > > Schrödinger

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:52:21 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was a fallacy? >> > > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > > > Schrödinger

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a superposition was a fallacy? *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* Schrödinger thought it was an absurdity, not a fallacy because he

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To > define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the >

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the expansion of this wave function in terms of a set of

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: *Bruno Marchal* > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > > The SWE does not give a preferred basis. Basing MWI on the Schrödinger > equation runs into the basis problem. Few MWI

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > [snip] > > * So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT > occur in the

Re: Entanglement

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> The SWE does not give a

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The SWE does not give a preferred basis. Basing MWI on the Schrödinger equation runs into the basis problem. Few MWI advocates actually take this seriously. And

Re: Entanglement

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > [snip] > >So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT occur > in the future, > > The arithmetical relations do that. Consciousness

Re: Entanglement

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> >> >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 11:32:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: > >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> From: < agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:32:18 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 11:32:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce

Re: Entanglement

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: [snip] * So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT occur in the future, * The arithmetical relations do that. Consciousness only select the histories *and creates those worlds in anticipation?

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 11:32:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From:

Re: Entanglement

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 11:32:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> >>> Remember that the analysis I have given above is

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing the general

Re: Entanglement

> On 6 Jun 2018, at 03:17, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/5/2018 5:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: One objective was

Re: Entanglement

ce to exist, the >>> basic state equation for decoherence that Bruce posted is nonsensical. The >>> same applies to Everett's MWI which is based on similar imaginary >>> entanglements, which Schrodinger warned us about. So what you wind up with >>> is a no

Re: Entanglement

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 05:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> >> >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: > >>> >>> Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing >>> the general progression of unitary

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing >> the general progression of unitary evolution. It is not specific

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 1:17:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/5/2018 5:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *One objective was to convince myself whether

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 5:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for decoherence makes

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for decoherence makes any sense. Originally I thought one

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for > decoherence makes any sense. Originally I thought one needed mutual > interference of all components

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for decoherence makes any sense. Originally I thought one needed mutual interference of all components for it to be viable. I doubted whether each component interferes

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 2:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:03:28 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: Remember that the analysis I have given above is

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:05:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:03:28 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> >>> Remember that the analysis I have given above is

Re: Entanglement

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:03:28 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing the general

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >