On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:28:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2018 7:04 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? >> > > > *The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little > sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in > the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component > states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG * > > > Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states. His description > is completely arbitrary and applies to any states. Does it make little > sense to single out North and East directions? After all there are > infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used. >
*Correct, but in his comment he's used the Up / Dn state of a SG experiment as an example. But if there are infinitely many other coordinate systems -- which of course I am not disputing -- why assert any system described as a superposition in any particular basis, is physically in any, or all of the component states simultaneously? AG* > > Brent > > >> *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. >> >> * 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 >> >> 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.
