On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. >>> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some >>> world. I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to >>> fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse". Same situation in String >>> Theory; no "must"; simply other possible universes in the landscape. Do you >>> really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 >>> million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million other universe? Seems >>> ridiculous to me.* >>> >>> >>> The problem is a conflict: >>> >>> (1) If the wave-function collapses when does it do it and what is the >>> process. >>> >> >> >> *The fact that we have unsolved problems, does not suggest we should >> grasp as straws such as the MWI. * >> >> >>> Does a human being have to look at the record? Is simply having a >>> recorde enough? But then what constitutes a record? Does it have be made >>> of more than 100 atoms, more than 10, more than 1? How is the record >>> created, if not by evolution of the Schrodinger equation? >>> >> >> >> *If you consider a specific experiment, say the double slit using micro >> objects like electrons, all you need is a recorder, any recorder, and if it >> is designed to determine which-way, the interference is destroyed. Thus, >> you don't need humans or consciousness in any form to collapse the wf. >> Feynman discusses this and it's quite conclusive IMO. * >> >> >> But you need to "collapse" it somehow by measuring the position of the >> electrons - otherwise there is no interference pattern. So the question >> remains, what is a measurement? If you replace the film by an array of >> atoms and you plan to measure where the electron lands by which atom it >> strikes and ejects from the array, you will them have to make a second >> measurement to see which atoms are missing. So "measurement" must include >> more interaction than that; enough interaction to constitute a "record". >> But that seems to just reword the problem. How much of a "record"? and >> what constitutes a record? >> > > > *I think these details can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. But the > main point seems solid; no human observers or consciousness needed to > produce interference, which is tantamount to collapse. Do you agree to > that? AG * > > > I agree that a human observer is not necessary...even a Trump supporter > would suffice. > > >>> (2)If it's created by a splitting of the world, then you still have the >>> same questions with "splitting" in places of "collapse" except that the SE >>> does provide the evolution. But then in the Schrodinger cat experiment the >>> world is splitting *continuously*. >>> >> >> *IMO, the problem posed by the cat is a macro object in an unthinkable >> superposition of Alive and Dead simultaneously. But if the object is macro, >> won't the interference terms be vanishingly small, so small that the >> unthinkable conclusion does not occur in the lifetime of the universe? IOW, >> FAPP there is no superposition and thus no enigmatic superposition.* >> >> >> Forget the cat. It's the radioactive atom whose emission will break the >> vial that causes the continuous splitting of the world: decay at >> 0:00...0:01...0:02.... And is FAPP enough? There are going to be >> intermediate cases in which there are 10 dof instead 1e30 dof, and the >> superposition can be eliminated by a change of basis. >> > > *FAPP is probably not enough. What is the change of basis that eliminates > the superposition? For the singlet state, Bruce says there is none and that > I may have misunderstood your earlier comments that every superposition can > be eliminated by a change of basis. TIA, * > > > No, Bruce was thinking of what *local *operator could be implemented. In > theory any pure state can be an element of a basis. So if the > superposition is pure it will an eigenstate of some operator....although > in general it will often be one that is impractical to implement. > > Brent >
*If you can remove the superposition from any pure state by a change of basis, why not do it for the cat and maybe the problem will go away? AG * -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
