Turns out that I do not understand it either. The pinhole thought experiment should decrease the coherent photons by a factor of 2 regardless of whether the incoherent photons are in separate branches or not. So the result is the same for MWI and wave collapse. Richard
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 24 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>>> >>>> Bruno: I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two >>>> slits >>>> >>>> Richard: You should be ashamed >>>> >>>> >>>> That's hardly an argument. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed >>> >>>> >>>> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical >>>> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make >>>> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes >>>> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy >>>> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used >>>> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, >>>> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we >>>> can stop here ... >>>> >>> >>> Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The >>> incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics. >>> So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would drop by 1/r^2 >>> where r is distance from the hole. >>> If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy >>> density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical >>> sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the >>> photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to >>> make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is >>> wrong. >>> >>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same >>> energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So >>> the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the >>> number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve >>> energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the >>> original photon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted >>> in branches, not in the multiverse. >>> >> >> Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the >> quantum probabilities >> >> >> No, the conservation of energy is global, and should be statistically >> verified in the normal (non Harry-Potter-like) branches. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people, >>>> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which, >>>> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are >>>> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice >>>> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference. >>>> >>> >>> >>> My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. >>> >>> >>> That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon, >>> making directly the physical into something psychological. >>> >>> >> Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each >> branch >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that >>> could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 >>> dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space........ With collapse, the >>> physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It >>> is just how I see reality. >>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> >>> >>> For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the >>>> wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all >>>> computations. >>>> >>>> >>> I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is >>> illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. >>> >>> >>> And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before >>> the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird, >>> because there are no evidence for it. >>> >> >> >> I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books? >> >> >> >> I think it is well known, at least by the scholars. I agree that I am a >> bit oversimplifying, by lack of time. The fact is that is that until >> Maimonides, there were as much platonist and aristotelian among the >> religious people. >> >> Religion, in a wide sense, are platonist at the start. What we see is not >> the real or the whole thing. Thus comes the idea of God, as the reason >> *behind* what we see, and the idea of science: let us find what really is. >> But Aristotelianism, which is very natural from the first person view (the >> brain is programmed to take seriously what we "see"), has made the human >> forgetting that science (including theology) comes from askeptical attitude >> with the idea that we are directly related to what we can measure and >> observe. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but >>> that waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that >>> is not an argument.. >>> >>> My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely >>> physical as MWI poses, >>> >>> >>> Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist >>> (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing >>> the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when >>> seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not >>> satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats. >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, many-dream arithmetic is part of Math Space >> >> >> I would say that the math space is part of the dream of numbers. Analysis >> is part of numbers' imagination/simplification. >> >> >> >> >>> would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and >>> more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be >>> illusion. >>> >>> >>> Unless energy is an illusion. >>> >> >> Of course, along with matter. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from >>> Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block >>> multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy. >>> >>> >>> Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist >>> theology. But the logic of self-reference seems to be capable of explaining >>> it, by imposing reversibility and linearity at the sigma_1 bottom (the >>> global indeterminacy domain of the first person). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The alternative is some kind of mathematical wave collapse to conserve >>> both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where >>> time matters. >>> >>> >>> From the first person point of view. >>> >>> >> Yes! Each branch that a particular person is following (with wave >> collapse at every junction) is a unique POV. >> >> >> OK. With apparent wave collapse. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties, that >>> collapse may be instantaneous. >>> >>> >>> Except for being macroscopic state, I am not sure why BEC entanglement >>> is so special. >>> >>> >> Experimentally entangled BECs have EPR properties including instant >> transfer of correlations. >> >> >> >> So BEC are just macroscopic, but only entanglement is used. Then you know >> my feeling: I don't believe that the violation of Bell's inequality >> introduces any instant transfer of correlation. Such instant transfer >> exists only if we assume that measurement gives unique outcome, which is >> not the case if there is no collapse. >> > > > This is the crux of our disagreement about the meaning of experimental > results. > > Consider an pinhole experiment with an Airy pattern (on the detector > screen in the large number of events limit). > The central lobe contains 1/2 of the integrated probability and so > detections will come from there 1/2 of the time. > > If the incoming photons are coherent (in-phase with each other) at least > 1/2 of the photons coming out of the detector will be coherent and in the > same world. The remaining photons with random phase are just noise. Without > instant wave collapse they are even scattered in multiple worlds.. > > With instant wave collapse, all of the photons detected are coherent. due > to instant entanglement. > > > I don't understand. Sorry. If you have a link with the equation, perhaps I > can figure out what happens. > > Bruno > > > That's an easy experiment. We needed the answer to do adaptive optics for > high power laser transmission to space. > Richard > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> But that collapse mechanism uses experiment-derived properties rather >>> than math for lack of any time dependence. >>> >>> >>> You can elaborate on this, as I am not sure to follow. >>> >> >> The experimental data indicates that the correlations of entangled but >> separate BECs are transferred faster than detector accuracy. I am willing >> to assume instant transfer. If so, there is no time dependence- no process >> that math could predict. Correlations are of course a holding-place word >> like entanglement where we lump all properties we cannot explain. >> >> Theoretical physics work on black holes concludes that for black holes to >> communicate classically, the correlations must be monogamous- one on one.. >> That is, all black holes communicate quantum mechanically over >> Einstein-Rosen ER Bridges. But to communicate classically, that is to talk, >> you must shrink the area of all ERs to zero (compactification) except one, >> ER throat area being proportional to entanglement entropy. >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf >> >> Hypothesizing that particles may behave like black holes, that explains >> wave collapse using quantum geometry.. >> arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0405152.pdf >> >> >> I will take a look asap. My current position is that 3p indeterminacy and >> 3p non-locality do not make much sense. (But then, with comp 3p physics is >> only an 1p plural subjective construct, and computationalism explains why >> there must be 1p (plural) indeterminacy, and non-locality, but it is only >> an effect of perspective, related to our global ignorance of not knowing >> which computations support us below our substitution level. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> Richard Ruquist 20141124 >> www.bostonalarm.com >> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard >>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. >>>>> I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I >>>>> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition >>>>> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can >>>>> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be >>>>> put >>>>> a zero. >>>>> >>>>> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, >>>>> and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all >>>>> computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical >>>>> reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative >>>>> notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win >>>>> the limit measure "game". >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a >>>>>>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I >>>>>>>> would say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the >>>>>> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches >>>>>> are >>>>>> only approximately defined? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
