On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
