On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> 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
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:
Born <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born>, 1926AgnosticNoYesAgnosticNoNo
Bohr <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr>, Werner
de Broglie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie>, 1927,David
von Neumann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>, 1932, John
Archibald Wheeler <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler>, Eugene
YesQuantum logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic>Garrett
Birkhoff <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Birkhoff>, 1936Agnostic
Everett <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett>, 1957YesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo
Dieter Zeh <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Dieter_Zeh>, 1970YesYesNoNoNo
B. Griffiths <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Griffiths>, 1984
Penrose interpretation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation>,
G. Cramer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer>,
Rovelli <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli>, 1994AgnosticNoAgnostic
(My appologies for anyone's e-mail program that has difficulty parsing the
above table, it is taken from:
> 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 <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different
>> 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
>> 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the
>> intermediate computations performed?
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.