On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 3:15:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 1:05:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 2 Jun 2018, at 00:23, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:43:29 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 3:59:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 May 2018, at 23:05, agrays...@gmail.com 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 >>>> >>> >>> *I would summarize it this way; since the cat and macro objects used in >>> forming tensor products and superpositions have decohered way before any >>> measurement has occurred, and also don't have well defined deBroglie waves >>> associated with them, which is the condition for interference to exist, the >>> basic state equation for decoherence that Bruce posted is nonsensical. The >>> same applies to Everett's MWI which is based on similar imaginary >>> entanglements, which Schrodinger warned us about. So what you wind up with >>> is a nonsensical house of cards that for some has a psychological appeal >>> more or less indistinguishable from an addiction. AG* >>> >> >> *In fact, to be clear, decoherence is irrelevant to the cat problem, or >> indeed any of the superpositions involving macro objects (with the few >> exceptions previously noted such as billiard balls and Buckyballs). In the >> cat case, even if the cat is entangled for an infinitesimally small >> duration with the radioactive source, one could argue that the cat is >> simultaneously alive and dead during this particular interval, so in this >> model the paradox persists even if only for a very short duration. I don't >> argue that!. Rather I argue that a cat has no well defined deBroglie wave >> length and the paradox comes about by assuming it does. All that matters is >> that other than some few exceptions, macro objects with well-defined >> deBroglie wave lengths simple don't exist! What is the wave length of your >> instrument, laboratory, or environment? They have none! Hence, they cannot >> exhibit interference and it's false on its face to use them in >> superpositions involving sums of tensor products. This is Everett's >> original sin and it's appalling that so many have followed him down this >> misleading path. As I previously indicated, Schrodinger warned us of this >> false path, but it fell on deaf ears. Those who want to solve the collapse >> problem of the CI need to seek another solution to this aspect of the >> measurement problem. AG* >> >> >> >> The formal structure of QM does not depend on the length wave, but of the >> fact that there are wave, and that the square of the wave amplitude give >> probabilities. Decoherence and entanglement are the same phenomenon, and >> the length of the wave makes only difficult to get interference with >> massive hot macro-object, making the superposition between macro-object >> very hard to detect. >> > > *I don't think you have understood my posts on this subject. The issue > isn't whether superposition or interference is hard to detect for macro > objectS. Rather, for most macro objects, overwhelmingly, superposition > never occurs since the objects in question have no well defined deBroglie > wave lengths. As I have stated several times, billiard balls and Buckyballs > are exceptions. What is the wave length of your SG device, or your > laboratory? Hard to detect or non existent? AG* >
*Bruno, in case you've forgotten; one CANNOT divide by zero. Thus, since p, momentum, is in the denominator of the deBroglie wave length, and your laboratory say, is at rest in your frame of reference, its deBroglie wave length isn't too small to be measured; rather, it doesn't exist! Isn't the wave length observed in quantum experiments in fact the deBroglie wave length? If so, on what basis can we write superpositions of states for entities that have no deBroglie wave length,- like lab instruments, and indeed entire universes, aka "the environment"? Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? AG* > The point is that a superposition state 1/sqrt(2)((cat-alive * >> up)+(cat-dead * down)) state cannot lead to a state like (cat-alive * up) >> nor a state like (cat-dead * down), ever. >> > > *But there is no superposition. How can a superposition exist if the cat > has no deBroglie wave length? Isn't that what Schrodinger was trying to > illustrate? Didn't Everett fall into this exact trap? AG* > > >> A cosmic ray can decohere the cat >> > > *A cat can never be in a coherent state. Similarly, the macro objects used > in Bruce's superposition in the decoherence model don't seem to have any > well defined wf's for his superposition to make sense. AG* > *Once it was known that these MW theories, inclusive of decoherent theory apparently, have ridiculous consequences due the wf's posited, they should have been summarily thrown away. But that was not to be. Too many people inexplicably fail to realize that a model that predicts humans can create entire universes simply by doing what amounts to trivial lab experiments, should be committed to mental institutions. There needs to be a law; don't ya think? AG * > > > >> but this means only that to get the interference back, or to >> “resuscitate” the cat, we need to take into account the system cat + >> particle + the cosmic ray, which is technically infeasible. If the wave >> equation is correct, a superposition just never disappear. To make a >> superposition into a well defined (physically) state, you need to assume >> the wave do not describe the reality or you need some dualist and non >> computationalist theory of mind. >> > > *I'd like to keep this discussion independent of neo Platonism and your > theory of arithmetic, and within the context of quantum formalism. AG* > >> >> Then, if the many-worlds looks extravagant, keep in mind that Everett use >> Mechanism in the cognitive science, and this leads to the problem of >> justifying only the appearance of a many-words (a universal wave), but >> there are no physical worlds at all, only the computations. The >> computations are provably emulated in arithmetic. So, the many worlds >> interpretation of arithmetic, which generalises Everett leads us to see >> that what we are really needed to assume is just very elementary >> arithmetic. >> >> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit 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.
