On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> Answers to your 3 questions. >> >> 1. No. >> > > If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your > interpretation address the EPR paradox ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, > according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the > paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory > of many-worlds. > > > That's not really true. If you look at the wikipedia table that you > cited, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics > you see that Popper's > Popper's interpretation uses hidden variables, and hence is ruled out by Bell's theorem. It also predicts that FTL signaling of information should be possible. > , time symmetric, > I couldn't find much information about Satosi Watanabe's theory, from the table it also appears to have hidden variables. Also, if it is both deterministic, and the universal wave function is real, I don't see how under QM this can lead to a unique history. (as the table indicates). Do you understand how this can be? > many-minds, > Zeh's many-minds, like many-worlds, suggests there is no unique history. E.g., there are multiple outcomes for each measurement. > consistent histories, > James Hartle, who wrote a book about consistent histories with Gell-Mann, said that consistent histories is the same as many worlds ( http://onqm.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html ). > and the relational interpretation > The relational interpretation is "agnostic" on whether or not there is a unique history. Is this many-worlds in denial? It seems to allow one observer to be in a superposition, relative to another. This is an example of an observer in more than one state at a time, which of course leads to multiple-outcome measurements. > are all local, i.e. no FTL. > Yes, but it seems all local (and valid) interpretations of QM allow measurements to have more than one outcome. > To that I would add the purely epistemic "non-intepretation" of Peres and > Fuchs. > "No interpretation needed" -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is "shut up and calculate", which leads no where really. > > > >> 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or >> alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. >> > > So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive > nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If > you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive > or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a > state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you > are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations > do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers > work (which require the superposition to exist). > > > Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is > a superposition in another. > > Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? > > > >> 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already >> exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information >> space, as I've described before in a number of posts. >> > > If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of > 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This > is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the > size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, > yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a > second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not > really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the > result of the computation comes from. > > > However, keep in mind that all this computation takes place in this world, > otherwise the processes could not interfere and converge to a (probable) > answer. > The computation is occurring in a (temporarily) causally isolated system. It is debatable whether we can rightfully say it happens in any *particular *world. Jason > > > >> >> However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you >> understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled "Yes, >> my book does cover quantum reality", or refer to the book itself, or I can >> explain further.... >> >> > Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now > I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is > reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my > questions. > > Jason > > >> >> >> >> 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: >>> >>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> 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. >> > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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. > -- 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.