> On 27 Apr 2018, at 08:23, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 10:38 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all >>>>>>>>> observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, >>>>>>>>> but it has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable >>>>>>>>> consequences, so it makes no sense to omit this key difference in >>>>>>>>> your historical comparisons with other apparent absurdities in >>>>>>>>> physics. Moreover when you factor into consideration that non >>>>>>>>> locality persists in the many worlds postulated -- assuming you >>>>>>>>> accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained by asserting >>>>>>>>> the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is significant as >>>>>>>>> any false path would be. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg cut >>>>>>>> is located (the other is QBism). It led to the theory of decoherence >>>>>>>> and Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a kind >>>>>>>> of hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical worlds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an objective physical >>>>>>> definition. Bohr regarded it as a choice in analyzing an experiment; >>>>>>> you put it where ever was convenient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI shed >>>>>>>> any light on it, whatever it is? AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's a splitting of >>>>>>> worlds which has some objective location in terms of decoherence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on >>>>>>> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of >>>>>>> confusion. AG >>>>>> >>>>>> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes >>>>>> the splitting of worlds. There is still some question whether it >>>>>> entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate >>>>>> axiom. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state >>>>>> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer >>>>>> splitting of worlds from this? AG >>>>> >>>>> I don't. Why should I? >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the >>>>> splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence >>>> >>>> You didn't give an example of decoherence. Where's the decoherence in an >>>> electron flying through a divergent magnetic field? >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I thought >>>> decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets entangled >>>> with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why is this >>>> not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is? TIA, AG >>> >>> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the other, >>> not when going thru the SG. It's a classic experiment to show that >>> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs. So if >>> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there >>> is a detection vs no detection. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a SG >>> device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no decoherence >>> in this case? >> >> No. I just saying when you posed the problem you didn't say anything about >> detection. You just said an electron went through an SG apparatus. >> >>> From what I gather from descriptions of decoherence, it occurs when a >>> measurement occurs, and the particle's wf gets entangled with the >>> measurement device. This is a detection, and I think you're saying the >>> world splits. If so, why would it? If there's no detection for whatever >>> reason, what are we to conclude? I would guess, nothing. AG >> >> No. The world still splits because no-detection means the particle took the >> other path where there was no detector, at least that's the MWI theory. >> >> Can't no detection just mean an inefficient measuring device? AG >> >> This is confirmed by the buckyball Young's slit experiment. The >> interference pattern disappeared even though the IR photons weren't measured. >> >> You've been around these lists for years. Haven't you read these >> experiments? >> >> Brent >> >> Just SG, not Buckyball. Not sure what Buckyball proves. > > It proves interference is destroyed just by the welcher weg being available > "out there" even if it was absorbed by a wall and completely impractical for > any person to recover. > >> You have an interference pattern when it goes through slit, and no IR >> photons detected. What does one thing have to do with another? Sorry; this >> is very confusing. AG >> >> Earlier, this particular discussion began with your comments about the >> Heisenberg Cut and you claimed it said something about splitting of worlds. >> "Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes >> the splitting of worlds." If you don't believe in the MWI, how can you >> claim decoherence is well defined and supports splitting of worlds? AG > > Believing in things is for religionists.
Today, but only because we still live in a era where theology has been stolen from science to become a matter of controlling the others (pseudo (dictatorial) politics).. I would have said pseudo-religiousnist, or use belief in the mundane sense. All theories and their consequences are beliefs. In science we just never claim truth, especially in theology (the fundamental science by definition; neutral on god and matters). Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
