On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:25:25 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:26:45 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 3 Jun 2018, at 23:37, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 3:15:13 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 1:05:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2 Jun 2018, at 00:23, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:43:29 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 3:59:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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.* >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> >> >> * 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!* >> >> >> >> Nothing it at rest in quantum mechanics. If my laboratory is at rest at a >> absolutely precise position, its momentum is totally undetermined. We >> always works with wave packet and/or their Fourier transforms. >> >> >> >> * Isn't the wave length observed in quantum experiments in fact the >> deBroglie wave length? * >> >> >> That question is not enough precise for me. May this site can help you: >> >> >> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20815/matter-waves-and-de-broglie-wave-length >> > > >> *If so, on what basis can we write superpositions of states for entities >> that have no deBroglie wave length,* >> >> >> >> I don’t think this is possible. Delta x times Delta p_x must always be >> bigger than h/4*pi.We can handle only wave packets, never “real” particles, >> which is a simplifying concept FAPP, but does not make much sense, and >> disappear in the quantum field theories (like the collapse,also, actually). >> >> *- like lab instruments, and indeed entire universes, aka "the >> environment"? Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? AG* >> >> >> You can’t just have precise momentum and position, in any feasible sense. >> >> Frankly, I prefer to use the formalism of linear space to discuss the >> foundational issue. Except for some superleselction rules, we can superpose >> any quantum state. It is just their sum in the Hilbert space. >> > > *I agree with you (and Bruce) that any linear combination of Hilbert state > vectors for a given system, solves the S. equation, is a valid (pure) state > for the system, and can then be written as a superposition of states. But > what you ignore is that in order to calculate probabilities correctly, the > states comprising any superposition must exhibit some mutual interference > which becomes evident in the way Born's Rule is applied. If they don't > manifest mutual interference, then the probability distribution will be > classical. So if I write a superposition including macro states which fail > to have any defining wave length, we are leaving the defining properties of > QM*. >
*I agree that given the HUP, absolute rest does not exist. So rather than arguing about dividing by p=0 in formula for deBroglie wave length (which assumes absolute rest, tell me what is the wave length of the universe implied by Bruce's equation which includes "the environment", denoted by |e> (excluding apparatus and observer)? It surely seems undefined, and if so, there is no discernible quantum meaning to the superposition in his formula used in decoherence theory. It may be a valid superposition in some limited sense -- terms of linear vector spaces -- but cannot represent a quantum formulation of superposition which necessarily implies the existence of interference for the calculation of non-classical probabilities. 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.* >> >> If the theory works very well, why to make it false in case “we” find it >> ridiculous? Science tries to avoid wishful thinking. >> We throw out theories when they have accumulated a lot of contradiction, >> but that is a process which takes time, as science is quite conservative >> (and wisely so in general). Sometimes we have to wait for the death of the >> “authorities” for seeing new ideas confirmed and developing. >> >> * 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* >> >> Nobody create new universes by observations. It is consciousness which >> differentiate on a structure which was already there. >> > > *So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT occur in > the future, and creates those worlds in anticipation? Now we're really > getting deep into woo-woo territory. AG * > >> >> Yes, nature seems weird, but as I said, with mechanism, all you need to >> assume is elementary arithmetic, universe are illusions, making “that >> creation of universe” an illusion of numbers when confronted to the >> infinitely many computations going through their state of mind. There is 0 >> universe, you can sleep quietly, if you dislike the many universes: it is >> an illusion that universal numbers just cannot avoid. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> 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 [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.
