On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG *
Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b at random. The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP. Any particular orientation can be /written/ as a superposition of two orthogonal states.
This is true in general. Any state can be written as a superposition of states in some other basis. But it is not generally true that we can prepare or directly measure a system in any given state. So those states we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as superpositions of states we can prepare.
Brent -- 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.
