On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: >> >> >> *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. >> >> >> It's in some definite state. But it may be a state for which we have no >> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a >> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to >> measure. So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. >> >> Brent >> > > *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, > does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? * > > > No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed. So in a sense it > is in both simulatnaeously. If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are > on a definite heading. But you are simultaneously traveling North and > East. And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output > "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you > might call that a superposition of north and east motion. > > Brent >
*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is simultaneously in both. ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG* > > *Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive) + (Decayed, > Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would > anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
