On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone > has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane > decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not > an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking > about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the > original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT > decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another > uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT > decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original > vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable > set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition. In the > quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the > basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases > exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into > superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the > system. * > > > All true. True of any vector space. SO WHAT? > > *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his "argument" > in favor of simultaneity* > > > "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph. So your rant is > unclear. >
*Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few messages above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, you will see he essentially says the two states in the superposition he uses for an example, is tantamount to simultaneous. Here it is: * *It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.* *The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn states. **AG* > > * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an > assertion. AG* > > > Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why don't > you go read a modern version. Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: Concepts > and Methods" pp 50, 116-117 > *Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and paste your reference above. AG * > > 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.
