On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of > states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead > simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed > simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those > "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of > other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in > its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a > natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to > Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence > theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of > virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence > doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, > apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These > considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of > states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of > orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of > the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this > interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of > providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to > one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to > leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, > or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to > above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes > exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * > > > If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism > solve the problem of wf collapse. > > Brent >
Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some professional "heavies" accept it? 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.
