> On 31 May 2018, at 23:05, [email protected] wrote: > > > <snip> > > How can you have experimental evidence for many worlds if they are disjoint > from this world? AG > When mathematics points to things which don't exist, it's usually, maybe > always, the consequence of some unstated, erroneous assumption in its > application. As I previously explained, it's a fallacy to apply the principle > of superposition of states to entities that fail to have well defined > deBroglie wave lengths (and which therefore can manifest interference) -- > such as cats in a box, or instruments, or "environments". That's what > Schrodinger warned us about, but the lesson has yet to sink in. AG > Then quantum mechanics is false somewhere in between the observed and the > observer, but there are no evidences to back that claim. One history is no > less speculative than many one, and one history makes no sense with the SWE > for which evidences abound. Then, simple independent hypothesis leads > directly to many histories, so QM as known today do confirm those independent > hypothesis, like mechanism in the cognitive science (not in physics). > > CMIIAW, > ? > > Correct Me If I Am Wrong. AG
OK. > but I think Everett used superpositions of macro states similar to what Bruce > wrote earlier, where sums of tensor products are formed using the apparatus > and environment. > > OK. > > That's what I surmised. Thanks for the confirmation. AG > All I claimed above is NOT that quantum mechanics is false, but rather than > one cannot form a legitimate superposition with entities that have no well > defined deBroglie wave length -- since the existence of a well defined wave > length is a necessary condition for interference, and that's the core > property of a superposition. So, if you indulge this error you will get > nonsense, such as a cat which is simultaneously alive and dead. AG > We cannot measure the “precise wavelength” in practice, but that is not > needed to get the superposition state. Actually, you make the same remark > that de Broglie himself, who concluded that superposition applies only to > light atoms, and fade away on atomic distance. > > Nothing can be measured precisely. Do you have a link to his comment? AG It is in one of his many book in French. I think it is in its “La théorie de la mesure en Mécanique Ondulatoire (Interpretation usuelle et interpretation causale)”. He wrote this after retirement when he came back to what could that theory means. > > But today we can get the interference effects with superposed “big” > molecules, like the 60 carbon ball, and cosmology indicated possible > interference between highly dense and massive object. > > As I expressly stated in an earlier post, billiard and Bucky balls have well > defined deBroglie wave lengths and thus CAN be included in superpositions. > However, most macro objects do NOT have well defined deBroglie wave lengths, Wave length applies to continuous variables, but when you entangle the cat with a spin state, as in Bohm thought experience, we use only the fact that the state of the compound object is O, say, and the state of the cat is O * cat *(up +down) = (O *(cat alive * up + cat-dead * down)) = O * cat alive *up + O * cat dead * down. The two branch are part of the “wave”, or better some state in some Hllbert Space (which is just an infinite linear space, with some limits, and a scalar product). > such as an instrument in a lab, the lab itself, and the general environment, > and CANNOT be included in a superposition, The problem is that by lack of reasonable isolation any object in our hot environment decoheres at the speed of light (or not far). The “multiplication of the universe” start at each point of the front of the universal wave. The universal wave is a sum of all its “front” wave in the space-time, structure, except that with GR we have no clue on how to proceed (well, The M theory is perhaps right, and string theory has found application in Number Theory, …). > the main property of which is interference. This is what Schrodinger > demonstrated in his cat paradox, but the lesson has been lost. AG The formalism implies the many world, like the periodic chemical properties of the element predicted new elements unknown at that time. In case we have a reason to believe the contrary, it is simpler to apply the formalism. Everett made precise that the formalism implies the subjective collapse of the entities living in relative quantum states allowing memories to be kept in FAPP macro-irreversible histories. There is no evidence for a collapse, as Everett showed that Copenhague and SWE-without collapse gives the same prediction. So between a theory and a theory + an exception rule, it is better, Imo, to accept the theory. Not everything is solved with Everett, but it is going in the right, albeit uncomfortable for people with metaphysical convictions perhaps, direction. What is missed is 1) why the quantum computations win on all computation? And 2) why does it hurt, was it necessary to attract our attention/consciousness on this? > > So you are right FAPP, but that does not change the fact that QM has to be > false if macroscopic superposition does not exist, > > Some exist; some don't. You can't blame QM if superposition is erroneously > applied, although it likely means that some of its problems do NOT go away, > and one must go back to the drawing board. AG You must understand that for me, Everett is only a confirmation of a apparent more innocent assumption, which is that we are natural mechanism. But mechanism was a though think to define mathematically. One of the first definition was that a function is computable iff it is describable by a lambda expression. Only when such ultra-abstract definition was proved equivalent with the more terrestrial "Turing machine” did Gödel accept the Church’s thesis, and now, we know that computability can be defined in any Turing complete theory, and that very elementary arithmetic, even just the diophantine polynomial are Turing complete, a slight variant of Turing universality. Wit mechanism, the wave, and the symmetries of the Hamiltonian must be derived by the logic of self-reference. Then using incompleteness we can separate the justifiable from the true not justifiable, the knowable from the true but not knowable, the observable from the real but not observable, etc. > > even if we can detect them, as QM explains well why we cannot detect them, > and why it seems to “memory-observers” like a collapse did occur. > > You're relying on the MWI, which is based on misapplying the principle of > superposition. AG Actually, I am relying only on elementary arithmetic, + a very weak mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science. And “Everett” really looks like the solution of the Matter problem that we translate the computationalist mind body problem in arithmetic. But the worlds are only relative computations, and the “realities” are phenomenological limits (on delays of “reconstitution” in arithmetic). It is all in the head of the universal machine. To be short. Bruno > > Bruno. > > -- > 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.
