> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at > > > 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, > > > > > Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of > > > > > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed > > > > > nucleus occurs in that time before decoherence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that calculated / postulated if the > > > > > radioactive source interacts with its environment? Can't it be > > > > > isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does that imply about > > > > > being in the pure states mentioned above? AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done > > > > usually with optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that > > > > techniques exist for making these sort of measurements and materials > > > > are such that one can pass photons through beam splitters or hold > > > > photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest. At higher > > > > energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very difficult. At > > > > intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons and > > > > mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things > > > > become impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for > > > > constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the > > > > light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. > > > > Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of > > > > your detectors. > > > > > > > > LC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > It is not for short time, it is forever. > > > > > > No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was > the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very > short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere > long before it is associated with any experiment. AG > > > > > You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is > indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest. > > > > > > No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states > is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to > offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a > superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition > SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little > pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of > basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum > systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many > bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG >
***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have much meaning (operationally, physically). Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements? No - in general - we cannot say that. > > > > An excellent book both on QM, interpretation and quantum > logic is the book by Bub. I am rereading it. > > > > Now, the MW is not so extravagant when you put it in the Mechanist > > frame. > > > > > > Then Joe the Plumber has immense power to create universes. I don't buy > it. AG > > > > > Indeed, it is expected once you believe that Diophantine > equations have solutions. All computations or histories exist, with relative > probabilities structured by the constraints of relative self-correctness. > From that view, it is the uniqueness of the physical universe which seems > extravagant, I would say. > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LC > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM > > > > > > UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or > > > > > > decayed - undecayed? 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 > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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] > mailto:[email protected] . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.
