On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is > no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one > place in. > Then what is it interfering with if not itself? > Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental non-physical > dimensionless information space. What we call space is actually networks of > dimensional relationships between quantum events that emerge from those > quantum events. Empty space is unobservable and therefore not a part of > reality. > It has observable effects, such as the amount of delay it can introduce between the emission and reception of a photon that must travel through it. > All that is observable is events, in this case specifically the > dimensional relationships between the participants in quantum events > imposed by the conservation laws. But his occurs in logical > (non-dimensional) computational space, not a physical dimensional space. > This is beginning to sound a lot like the UD. > > So in the double slit experiment the actual events are the decoherences of > the electrons with the screen which produce exact dimensional > relationships. The apparent wave behavior of the electrons passing through > the slits is a non-observable backward inference based on the wavefunction > equations which are not electrons spread out in multiple locations in a > pre-existing space but the mathematical equivalent probabilities of how > space could dimensionalize when those electrons decohere. > This sounds a bit like the pilot-wave theory. > > This is a subtle theory, and hopefully I can explain further if necessary, > or you can read Part III of my book..... > > There is a comparison table of various interpretations of QM. I am curious how yours would appear if it were added to it: InterpretationAuthor(s)Deterministic?<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism> Wavefunction real? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Ontology>Unique history?Hidden variables <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory>?Collapsing wavefunctions? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse>Observer role?Local <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality_principle>?Counterfactual definiteness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness>? Universal wavefunction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction> exists?Ensemble interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_Interpretation>Max Born <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born>, 1926AgnosticNoYesAgnosticNoNo NoNoNoCopenhagen interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics>Niels Bohr <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr>, Werner Heisenberg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, 1927NoNo1<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note1> YesNoYes2<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note1> CausalNoNoNode Broglie–Bohm theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory>Louis de Broglie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie>, 1927,David Bohm<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm>, 1952YesYes3<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note3> Yes4<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note4> YesNoNoNoYesYesvon Neumann interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse>John von Neumann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>, 1932, John Archibald Wheeler <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler>, Eugene Wigner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner>NoYesYesNoYesCausalNoNo YesQuantum logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic>Garrett Birkhoff <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Birkhoff>, 1936Agnostic AgnosticYes5<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note5> NoNoInterpretational6<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note6> AgnosticNoNoMany-worlds interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation>Hugh Everett <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett>, 1957YesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo YesPopper's interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_experiment> [51]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-51>Karl Popper <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper>, 1957[52]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-52> NoYesYesYesNoNoYesYes13<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note13> NoTime-symmetric theoriesSatosi Watanabe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satosi_Watanabe>, 1955YesYesYesYesNoNoYesNoYesStochastic interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_interpretation>Edward Nelson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Nelson>, 1966NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoMany-minds interpretation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation>H. Dieter Zeh <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Dieter_Zeh>, 1970YesYesNoNoNo Interpretational7<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note7> YesNoYesConsistent histories<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories>Robert B. Griffiths <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Griffiths>, 1984 Agnostic8<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note8> Agnostic8<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note8> NoNoNoInterpretational6<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note6> YesNoNoObjective collapse theories<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory> Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory>, 1986, Penrose interpretation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation>, 1989NoYesYesNoYesNoNoNoNoTransactional interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation>John G. Cramer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer>, 1986NoYesYesNoYes9<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note9> NoNo14<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note14> YesNoRelational interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics>Carlo Rovelli <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli>, 1994AgnosticNoAgnostic 10<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note10> NoYes11<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note11> Intrinsic12<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note12> YesNoNo (My appologies for anyone's e-mail program that has difficulty parsing the above table, it is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics ) Jason > Edgar > > > On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because >>> he brings up a very important issue. >>> >>> The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread >>> out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly >>> assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. >>> >>> However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another >>> interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in >>> logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is >>> descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events >>> (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the >>> dimensional variables of interacting particles). >>> >> >> I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It >> reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically "we live in a >> simulation running on a quantum computer": http://www.youtube. >> com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc >> >> >>> The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different >>> interpretation. >>> >> >> I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny >> completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron >> double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than >> one place at the same time? >> >> I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered >> the following questions. According to your interpretation: >> >> 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? >> 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or >> dead? >> 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the >> intermediate computations performed? >> >> Jason >> >> >>> >>> However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum >>> events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables >>> us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum >>> 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the >>> fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. >>> >>> >> >> > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
