On 15/12/2017 10:08 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The thing about mixed states is that they are inevitable if you write
the state of a system as a tensor product of the separate states of
subsystems. The separate subsystems are not pure states because of
entanglement between them.
There is entanglement with the environment but the same computational
state appears in different "decoherent" branches.
This is conjecture only -- has not been demonstrated.
You don't per se need to invoke any mixed states. Also, it's a well
known fact that any mixed state can be considered to be a pure state
of a larger system, the so-called "purification" of the state.
Maybe, but then your calculation doesn't go through.
But all this is rather beside the point. We can talk about your paper
separately if you wish, but the main point is that you still have not
risen to the challenge I offered: start from the decohered state |coin>
and derive the state {|heads > + |tails>} by purely unitary interactions
with the environment -- such as by shaking etc (Not by a contrived
entanglement with some single quantum process such as a nuclear decay.)
Bruce
--
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.
