On 31 Oct 2014, at 20:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with
energy.
Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie
type of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more
mystery than solving one.
I base my thinking on double-slit experiments where a single photon
is transmitted at any one time and the detectors are set to record
photons having the original energy/frequency. The experimental
results indicate that only one photon is detected per one incident
photon. With enough single-photon detections the interference
pattern can be discerned at the detector plane. Yet EM theory
suggests that the photon energy is spread across the entire
interference pattern.
So never mind what might be happening in other worlds, what makes
all of the photon energy suddenly appear at just one detector.
I certainly reject the idea that human consciousness makes all waves
collapse into one. But I have a different idea that may or may not
make sense.
My conjecture is that the EM fields (or in general the wave
functions in any particle-particle interaction) are entangled as
though they are BECs.
Experiments demonstrate that entangled BECs transmit information
instantly between isolated but entangled BECs.
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big "physical" picture. In the MW
theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without
using anything non local, or instantaneous. I took Aspect experiment
as a confirmation of the MW idea.
If so, even if the photon energy is spread out across the entire
pattern, the information of where the photon energy should go is
available to the entire EM field.
That looks like magic to me. To talk frankly.
That does not allow you to predict where any particular photon
detection will occur. But the instantaneous transfer of information
may allow for a single photon detection for each transmitted photon.
The alternative in single-photon experiments would be no detections
at all since the EM field on any particular detector is insufficient
to create a detection.
I might need to think about this. It is not clear for me, but I have
already a problem with instantaneous transfer of information. Indeed
that is why I take the MW seriously.
If anyone buys this, I can also speculate on how wave functions
could be BECs or act like them.
If you can explain this in simple terms ... You might explain a bit on
the BECs. Thanks to Feynman, I did get some light on what are bosons
(and fermions). I can understand why fermions can imitate bosons, but
here you seem to imply that condensation of bosons could imitate all
waves? Or you say wave functions can be BECs, but this is obvious, as
BECs are wave functions, or described by wave functions (everything in
QM are wave functions, or Hilbert space vectors/projection-operator/
density matrices. Feel free to elaborate, but I warn you that I really
tend to disbelieve in anything causal and instantaneous, even if there
is no usable information transmitted. I am teaching QM right now, and
I intend to illustrate this with (quantum) teleportation. I am a very
conservative guy. I stopped understanding physics since Aristotle ... ;)
Bruno
Richard
Because of quantum theory the interaction energy
may or may not exceed particle-creation level.
If the creation level is exceeded by not very much
all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state
else no particle is created.
For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are
the Born probabilities.
Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded,
all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one
state.
That must be quantum collapse logic QCL.
I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some
agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist
theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that
Everett gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from
computationalism, if I am correct.
Bruno
I don't think Everett explicitly considered quantum field theory,
but it's not conceptually different. A particle can be created or
not, it's a probabilistic event. So in MWI there are worlds where
the particle is created and worlds where it isn't. There are no
worlds where a half-particle is created. This is just another
example in which everything *nomologically* possible happens; which
is not the same as everything imaginable (logically consistent)
happens. Quantum mechanics puts lots of constraints on what can
happen.
Brent
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
