On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:54 PM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What about it, what is your theory of decoherence and how does it make >> the CI less dumb? > > > > *Not that I'm a great fan of decoherence theory, but it doest includes > the apparatus, observer, and the rest of the environment in the measuring > process.*
I know what quantum decoherence is but I've never heard of the term "decoherence theory" before and I don't see how anyone can talk about decoherence without referring to the rest of the environment. If X is the only thing in the universe or the only thing that’s important then there is nothing X can become cohered or de-cohered from. *>>> I have always regarded Bell results as paradoxical, or if you prefer >>> unintelligible,* >> >> >>It's not paradoxical because its not self contradictory and its not >> unintelligible because the results are clear as a Bell (pun intended), they >> are just very very odd. > > > > *Do us all a favor and stop playing word games. * Now you sound like Bruno. Do you really thing you can give words vague ephemeral meanings and still do science? *>What you call "odd", can easily been seen as paradoxical or > unintelligible * I don’t think we’re ever going to be able to figure out anything if the meanings of words change at our whim from day to day. The reductio ad absurdum proof is actually poorly named because it is not good enough to show that a proposition will lead to something odd or even very odd to prove that the proposition must be untrue, you’ve got to show it is paradoxical, that is to say self contradictory. If Many World’s or the Transactional Interpretation was true it would means some very odd things were going on behind the scenes, but that doesn’t prove either of them is untrue. In fact now that the Bell experiments have been performed one thing we know for sure is that some very odd things ARE going on behind the scenes, we’re just not sure exactly what they are. So if your explanation is not very very odd it can’t be right. I don’t know what it would mean if Copenhagen turned out to be true because even those who say they believe in it can’t agree among themselves what exactly the Copenhagen Interpretation is saying other than “shut up and calculate”. *> insofar as it can't be understood in terms of how we perceive space, or > spatial extent, and of course causality * So to have any hope of understanding what’s going on we’re going to have to abandon comfortable concepts like causality and the normal way we perceive space and embrace something much stranger. >> Are you confusing plane waves with advanced waves? > > > >*Definitely not. Plane waves don't exist except possibly in your > imagination. AG* To a good approximation a Laser produces plane waves, the electromagnetic wave fronts form parallel planes, that’s why a Laser beam spreads out very little with distance unlike a light bulb which produces a spherical wave. But I don’t see what this has to do with quantum interpretation and I don’t know of any physicists who thinks plane waves are more controversial than spherical waves. John K Clark -- 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.
