On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:46:28 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 3:28:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:32 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:07:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/16/2018 1:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:25:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in universe U, where I had >>>>> coffee. Hadn't I had coffee this morning, you would now be in universe >>>>> U', where I didn't have coffee. I guess you could say that I created >>>>> universe U, but I don't think I will be worshiped has a god any time >>>>> soon. >>>>> >>>> >>>> * Applying the MWI to this situation, it would look something like >>>> this; you go into a restaurant and have coffee. As a result, immediately, >>>> another universe is created which has a copy of you, inclusive of your >>>> memories, where you DON'T to go into the restaurant. Can't the see the >>>> foolishness of what the MWI assumes? Namely, everything that's possible to >>>> happen, MUST happen. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that's a common conclusion and presumably why this is called the >>>> "everything-list". >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * Does the name of the list imply the discussion is limited to the MWI >>> or that it's in the ballpark of reality??? AG Do me a favor and try to >>> explain the problem I posed a few messages back, or maybe on the >>> Entanglement thread, about the principle of superposition. Specifically, >>> the role of interference and what it has to do with the interpretation that >>> a system in a superposition is in all component states simultaneously. This >>> seems to be the case even when the component states are orthogonal as a >>> basic property of linear algebra, yet interference among the states (the >>> non orthogonal case?) seems necessary to get the double slit probability >>> density. TIA, AG * >>> >>> >>> You seem confused about interference and entanglement. Entanglement >>> means there's been some past interaction so there are cross terms in the >>> reduced density matrix of two entangled things. They are "interfering" >>> with one another. But this is in general not observable because they are >>> interfering with lots of other stuff too. When you refer to double slit >>> experiments showing interference, it is because the interference has been >>> isolated to one simple effect that we can observe. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> * Suppose I write a wf in an orthogonal vs non-orthogonal basis. In both >> cases, the system can be interpreted as being in all component states >> simultaneously due to the properties of linear algebra, that is vector >> addition. But does interference exist in the latter case due to non >> orthogonality? TIA, AG * >> >> >> Interference has to be between two states. If the states are orthogonal >> there's no interference between them. It doesn't matter what basis is used >> to represent the states. >> >> Brent >> > > > > *Maybe my question was ambiguous. I was referring to expressing the wf in > two different bases, one where the basis components are mutually > orthogonal, and the other where they are not. Of course the wf can > expressed in any basis. In the QM context, given two wf's, what does > interference mean? I used to think it referred to the appearance of non > zero cross terms when using Born's rule, but what probability would I be > calculating to apply Born's rule, or is Born's rule irrelevant here? AGNow > consider the S. Cat, using the usual wf (leaving out Dirac symbols and > normalizing factor). We have the wf = (alive, undecayed) + (dead, decayed). > Do you agree that this wf assumes entanglement, and the alleged paradox has > nothing to do with interference, but rather the usual additive properties > of linear algebra, where the total wf simultaneously manifests its > components (from which we get a cat which is simultaneously alive and dead > before the measurement or collapse? AG * >
*Brent; What I don't understand is the nature of the cross terms which imply interference when considering two different wf's. IOW, when Born's rule is applied to a single state, say to get the probability density of some observable, we get non-zero cross terms, which means the wave interferes with itself as in the double slit experiment. But how is Born's rule applied to two distinct states, to determine if they interfere with each other, or not? Also, do you agree my immediate prior comment? TIA, AG * -- 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.
