On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, [email protected] 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. >
*When I get no response, I assume I am not understood, or my point was not well written. Moreover, I have stated several times that given the plethora of bases, it makes no sense to single out a single basis and assert the state of a system is simultaneously in the component states. AG * > > *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. > *I think you're misreading Dirac's comment, which isn't clear, unless he's referring to a change of basis. That would mean that when we measure Up, the system remains in the superposed Up and Dn state. 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 * > > > 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 > *Thanks. Time's nearly up here. Will do it tomorrow. 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 [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.
