> On 23 May 2018, at 10:16, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: <agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> >> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:09:31 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: <agrays...@gmail.com <>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> On 5/22/2018 9:41 PM, <>agrays...@gmail.com <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:05:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/22/2018 8:29 PM, <>agrays...@gmail.com <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:24:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>>>> From: < <>agrays...@gmail.com <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:45:39 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, <>agrays...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:44:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/2018 3:46 PM, <>agrays...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:41:11 PM UTC, <>agrays...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did, but you're avoiding the key point; if the theory is on the >>>>>>>> right track, and I think it is, quantum measurements are irreversible >>>>>>>> FAPP. The superposition is converted into mixed states, no >>>>>>>> interference, and no need for the MWI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're still not paying attention to the problem. First, the >>>>>>> superposition is never converted into mixed states. It approximates, >>>>>>> FAPP, a mixed state in some pointer basis (and not in others). Second, >>>>>>> even when you trace over the environmental terms to make the cross >>>>>>> terms practically zero (a mathematical, not physical, process) you are >>>>>>> left with different outcomes with different probabilities. CI then >>>>>>> just says one of them happens. But when did it happen?...when you did >>>>>>> the trace operation on the density matrix? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the main takeaway from decoherence is that information isn't >>>>>>> lost to other worlds, but to the >>>>>>> environment in THIS world. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that ignores part of the story. The information that is lost to the >>>>>> environment is different depending on what the result is. So if by >>>>>> some magic you could reverse your world after seeing the result you >>>>>> couldn't get back to the initial state because you could not also >>>>>> reverse the "other worlds". >>>>>> >>>>>> What "other worlds"? If they don't exist, why should I be concerned >>>>>> about them? AG >>>>> >>>>> I think you are ignoring the facts of the mathematics of unitary >>>>> evolution of the wave function. Under unitary evolution the wave function >>>>> branches, one branch or each element of the superposition, which is, one >>>>> branch for each possible experimental result. These branches are in the >>>>> mathematics. Now you can take all branches as really existing every much >>>>> as the observed result exists -- that is the MWI position. Or you can >>>>> throw them away as not representing your experimental result -- which is >>>>> the collapse position. But in both cases, the evolution of the wave >>>>> function shows that there is information in each mathematical branch. If >>>>> you discard the branches (collapse) you throw this information away: if >>>>> you retain the branches as other worlds, the information becomes >>>>> inaccessible by decoherence and partial tracing. >>>>> >>>>> The situation is the same in either approach. Brent and I are not being >>>>> inconsistent, devious, or otherwise tricky by referring to both MWI and >>>>> CI approaches -- we are just recognizing the actual mathematics of >>>>> quantum mechanics. The mathematics has to be interpreted, and different >>>>> interpretations are available for the way in which the information in >>>>> other branches is treated. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> Consider this interpretation of the wf, which for simplicity I consider >>>>> as a superposition of two eigenfunctions, and based on the probability >>>>> amplitudes represents a 50% probability of each outcome at some point in >>>>> time. Since the measurement hasn't occurred, where does this information >>>>> reside? Presumably it all resides in THIS world. As time evolves the >>>>> probability distribution changes, say to 75-25, and later to 90-10, and >>>>> so on. All of this information resides in this world since without a >>>>> measurement occurring, there are no other worlds, and no collapse. >>>>> Suppose at some point in time, the values changed to 100-0, Isn't 100-0 >>>>> as good as other pair if they sum to zero? And why would anyone think >>>>> another world comes into existence because one of the values evolved to >>>>> 0? I will now define, in answer to one of Brent's questions, when the >>>>> measurement occurs. I assert it occurs when one of the pair of values >>>>> equals 0, All throughout all information was in this world. Why would >>>>> another world come into existence if one of the values happened to be 0? >>>>> AG >>>> >>>> First, in the cases of interest there is no mechanism for going from 50/50 >>>> to 100/0 because it goes 0/100 as well, and it's random. You may >>>> hypothesize there is such process, but that's equivalent to assuming a >>>> hidden variable. And then Aspect's experiments show such a hidden >>>> variable transmits influence faster than light...which then cascades into >>>> problems with special and general relativity and quantum field theory and >>>> so on... >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> I was assuming the wf evolves to different probabilities via the SWE. >>>> Nothing wrong with going to 0/100 because that just means the other >>>> eigenvalue became the final state. AG >>> >>> That's why I wrote "in cases of interest". If it evolves to 0/100 via the >>> SWE no problem...no interest either. >>> >>> Why no interest? Haven't I described the case of a system evolving >>> according to the SWE, then a measurement occurring, and throughout all the >>> information is residing in THIS world. >> >> Your thought experiment does not correspond to unitary quantum evolution. >> >> Why not? Would different intermediate values correspond to unitary quantum >> evolution? AG > > You describe the evolution of a quantum state to a different state -- you are > not describing a measurement operation. If you measure a different state, you > can expect different results. > > >>> Why would information be lost to some other world simply because one value >>> of the pair of probabilities equals 0? >> >> If one of the probabilities is zero, it means that the wave function has no >> corresponding component. If the only other part of the wave function has >> probability 100%, then the outcome is certain, and no information can reside >> anywhere else. >> >> I was trying to describe a situation where the wf collapses, in terms of >> probability, to a delta function, where a single outcome is achieved with >> 100% probability, and the other does not, so it has probability of 0. AG > > That is a measurement on a different state, where one would expect different > results. > >>> IOW, the example is meant to illustrate the fallacy of claiming some >>> information is lost when the measurement occurs, and now resides in some >>> inaccessible other world. In decoherence, isn't all the lost information >>> lost in THIS world, to the environment, like a heat bath? Isn't decoherence >>> therefore in conflict with the MWI? AG >> >> No. Decoherence occurs independently for each branch of the wave function, >> so information is disseminated into the environment in all branches of the >> wave function independently. >> >> OK, but how does one jump to the assumption of other worlds? Doesn't each >> "branch" exist in this world? AG > > Initially yes. But decoherence diagonalizes the density matrix FAPP, so the > other branches become unreachable. That is what one means by separate worlds.
Indeed. And that is what makes MW irreversible FAPP, but reversible in principle, and CI irreversible “absolutely”. But CI is really just QM + the assumption that QM does not apply to the observer (with no success telling us clearly what is an observer).. Bohm DeBroglie is the MW, + a complicated machinery of epicycles (“particles”) obeying a physical potential capable of acting FTL to guide the particles in one branche. It does not really work in special and general relativity, although some would debate the point, and partial success are not totally absent, just to be honest. Bohm, like Non-mechanism makes the wave, or arithmetic, full of zombies. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 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.
