On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, [email protected] <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"? *
It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely
many possible basis. Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while
true it does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact
about all vector spaces. Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical
victory by pointing out an absurdity.
*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*
No. It would be the UP state.
*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
*
Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols. Just go to
http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf
and scroll down the relevant pages. It doesn't take more than 10sec.
Brent
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 [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.
