----- Forwarded message from Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:43:28 +1000 From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ricardo Aler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:23:47PM +0200, Ricardo Aler wrote: > Hello, > > I just read your book and I was specially interested on the Quantum > Mechanics part. I found that a bit abstract in the sense that (at > least for me, not being a physicist), it is a bit difficult to go from > the QM postulates, to more well-known properties of QM, like > interference (two slits) and entanglement (EPR). > Fair enough, but there are some excellent expositions of how the axioms give rise to the well-known properties of QM. For instance, I can highly recommend Shankar's book. However it is an undergraduate text book, so may be a little mathematical for your taste. > As for interference, I tried to see in your book wether it was a > direct consequence from your theory of observation or from something > else. But from what I understand, it seems that Interference has more > to do with using complex numbers than with observation. I mean, you > could have used a positive real measure, instead of a complex one, and > you would have obtained a different physics (I wonder which one, > classical physics?). So it seems that interference (at least) is > independent of your theory of observation. > You are indeed correct, that it depends on the measure being complex. As I describe in a couple of places in the book, a complex measure is a more general situation to a real measure, and so is more probable according to the Occam's razor theorem. In other words, to have a real measure, there has to be a good reason for it. Since we obviously observe a complex valued measure (QM experiments), there is no need to look for a reason for the measure to be real. The cannot be any such reason. The only fly in the ointment is that complex measures are not the most general measure. One can have quaternion measures, octonion measures - in general a spectral measure. I do not have a good answer as to why the measure should be complex. Perhaps there is some good reason. Perhaps the measure may be more general, but makes no difference to physical outcomes. Perhaps. Its an open research question, which I only became aware of in writing the book :). Its also very difficult to work with these more general measures, as the state space will no longer be a vector space. > Also, I don't understand when you say that "a" observers partition the > state this way, and "b" observers in some other way (like measuring > the spin along the y axis or the x axis). But, wouldn that be > impossible to do simultaneously?. > Don't forget that we have already made the "many minds" move earlier. All possibilities exist. Therefore two different observers can observe different incompatible observations, but clearly in that case they are inhabiting different realities (or "worlds" in the MWI terminology). > Finally, do you think that entanglement is a direct consequence of > your theory of observation? Yes, in that entanglement is a direct consequence of the mathematical formulation of QM, which follows (at least if I'm correct :) ) from my assumptions. However, trying to see how this might be so intuitively without going through the maths route is tough. > > Best regards, > > Ricardo Aler. > > -- > Ricardo. > ------------- > mailto: "Ricardo Aler Mur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/INF/aler Good questions Ricardo. I've taken the liberty of posting this response to the everything-list and to avoid-L, as the points you raise are of general interest. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---