On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com 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 > > > Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been > the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not > widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. > > Brent >
*Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? 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 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.
