From: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 3:05:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: <[email protected]>On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: <[email protected]>Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing the general progression of unitary evolution. It is not specific to any particular case, or any particular number of possible outcomes for the experiment. Bruce *OK. For economy we can write, **(|+>|e+> + |->|e->), where e stands for the entire universe other than the particle whose spin is being measured. What is the status of the interference between the terms in this superposition? For a quantum superposition to make sense, there must be interference between the terms in the sum. At least that's my understanding of the quantum principle of superposition. But the universe excluding the particle being measured seems to have no definable wave length; hence, I don't see that this superposition makes any sense in how superposition is applied. Would appreciate your input on this issue. TIA, AG*A superposition is just a sum of vectors in Hilbert space. If these vectors are orthogonal there is no interference between them. Your quest for a wavelength in every superposition is the wrong way to look at things. Macroscopic objects have vanishingly small deBroglie wavelengths, but the can still be represented as vectors in a HIlbert space, so can still form superpositions. I think you are looking for absolute classicality in quantum phenomena -- that is impossible, by definition. Bruce *If that's the case, why all the fuss about Schrodinger's cat? AG*Is there a fuss about Schrödinger's cat? Whatever fuss there is, is not about the possibility of a superposition of live and dead cats. It is about choosing the correct basis in which to describe the physical situation. The Schrödinger equation does not specify a basis, and that is its main drawback. In fact, that observation alone is sufficient to sink the naive many-worlds enthusiast -- he doesn't know in which basis the multiplication of worlds occurs. Bruce *Interesting point. Do you mean that if one solved the SE for some standard quantum problem (nothing fancy, no decoherence modeled), one can generally expand the solution in different bases, say p, E, or x, and each expansion would imply a different set of worlds using the MWI? Are there other bases besides these three? I'm thinking there could be an infinite set of basis vectors since, by analogy, IIUC, for the simple 2-dimensional vector space of "little pointy things", I think every pair of non co-linear vectors could form a basis (so most bases are not orthogonal). AG*
There are an indefinite number of possible sets of basis vectors in any Hilbert space. Think of the 2-dimensional space for a spin half particle -- one can form a set of orthonormal basis vectors for every direction in the 3-sphere. Different bases are not different observables such as p, E, or x. Each such observable has its own Hilbert space and an infinite set of possible bases. Each set of basis vectors is just a linearly independent set of sums over some other basis. It is easier to visualize this in the case of a simple linear vector space. Think of 3-dimensional Euclidean space. You can choose a set of three axes, but these can be rotated into any direction. Or linear combinations can be formed that are not necessarily orthogonal. For physical situations in QM, some bases are more useful than others, but the choice of basis is by no means unique.
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.
