On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 7:25:01 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 5:19:04 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: <[email protected]> >> >> >> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:36:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Question for Bruce; >>> >>> Remember when you tried to establish an arrow of time at the quantum >>> level with a paper on bremsstrahlung? Eventually, you withdrew that >>> analysis. But if you believe quantum measurements are irreversible in >>> principle, isn't that sufficient to establish an arrow of time at the >>> quantum level? AG >>> >>> >>> An arrow of time implies a direction. Simple irreversibility does not >>> establish a direction for time. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> If a quantum measurement is, in principle irreversible, and is the result >> of a decoherence process which in principle is reversible (since it's >> unitary), is this not a contradictory position? This seems to be your >> position IIUC. CMIIAW. AG >> >> >> It would seem that you have not been listening to anything that I have >> said. >> > > What good would it do? I'm from America where we can't read, speak, or > understand English. Also, I am a moron when it comes to physics, so for me > it's impossible to understand genius. As I recall, in your first cut here, > recently, you claimed the information lost in the collapse models is lost > to Many Worlds -- those Worlds you hold in huge contempt wrt existence! > Failed the smell test. What you write below is your second cut, which is > just an affirmation of your belief. You once came close to proving your > claim in a discussion with Vic Stenger many moons ago, and IIRC the context > was a spin measurement. But that seems lost in history. Or try imagining > actually calculating how much "information" is lost in a given quantum > experiment, say using the proper units of information. Gigahornets? That > would be a REAL proof of irreversible in principle. ... IMO, decoherence > is, indeed, relevant, if we assume the measurement process converges to a > single measurement due entanglements with the reservoir states. Since these > entanglements are unitary and hence reversible, we could be dealing with a > situation where the quantum measurement is irreversible FAPP. AG > > >> Many worlds is irreversible because we can't reach into other worlds to >> reverse them. Collapse models are irreversible because the projections >> (collapse) throws information away. The fact that decoherence is unitary >> and reversible is irrelevant to this. >> > *On the Entanglement thread you asserted decoherence is statistically irreversible (or irreversible FAPP) in this world (which I agree with). So how can you rely on an interpretation you deny, the MWI, that collapse models in this world are irreversible in principle if you must now defacto insist that these other worlds exist? Resurrecting these other worlds when it suits your convenience is not a kosher methodology. AG*
And the fact that quantum measurement is irreversible does not give a >> direction to time, so is not the source of the arrow of time. No >> contradictions anywhere. >> > *A measurement is done and IMO that defines a time direction; let's say "forward in time". If the measurement cannot be reversed, statistically or in principle, the arrow cannot go in the other direction; called "backward in time". AG* > >> Think about it before you come back with more questions....... >> >> 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.
