> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: >> > <snip> > > >> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum >> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all >> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement. > > Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or polariser, > or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You are just > saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything else. That is > contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, at any scale > and level. > > Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this thread. > Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know it well > enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect to posit > new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you are unable to > understand simple English? > > OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ? Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I have ceased to judge the collapse plausible. The problem is in how we related the results of measurement with the quantum wave, and with the collapse, the answer is in the relative average histories (sequence of memories). > All I am asserting is that the INTERPRETATION of a quantum superposition of > states is wrong if it claims that a system represented by a superposition of > states is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all components of the superposition. Then QM is false, as it describes an observer of the schroedinger cat as a superposition of the observer seeing the cat dead + the observer seeing the cat alive. You add a new axiom: the collapse, which distinguish the observer from the observed. You need a non mechanist theory of mind. We disagree on the theory. You add an axiom, which unfortunately leads to FTL, physical 3p indeterminism, non covariance, etc. In Everett, the theory applies to the observer’s body, entirely. You are the one adding a new axiom that QM does not obey to what? Macroscopic device? Consciousness? You can choose the cut very near your consciousness, to avoid the experimental refutations, but in all case, you need to make QM wrong to make the other branches of the wave disappear. > I make this claim because bases in Hilbert spaces are NOT unique, The reasoning is independent of the base, but of course, a “concrete” relative observer needs to choose a base, usually the same as its preys, which is the same for its predators. I do not claim any truth. Just that QM without collapse explains better than QM + collapse. And then that if QM use mechanism, eventually the wave itself is the product of the universal machine ignorance border. > and I gave the example of vectors in a plane to show that since the number of > bases can be huge in number, sometimes uncountable, it mocks the claim that > one particular basis is special. No one is special “ontologically”, but some one become local star. > If it isn't special, there is no reason to assume that an expansion of a wf > for a system in one basis, implies the system is simultaneously in all > components of this particular.superposition. ? Any base will give the same relative base in which the observer is defined. (The position base). Everett explains all this in detail in his long text. There is no choice of special basis, except for the empirist who follows our ancestors in the art of positioning things. That is probably why the “relative sates” wording is better than the “world” wording. “Dream” or “Game” might be less wrong. > > When I formally studied QM at the undergraduate and graduate levels, we > solved many of the standard problems such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., and > in no case did the assumption about superposition which I claim is > unwarranted and false, enter the analysis. ??????????? (You miss something, but I did have a book by a guy who understood QM very well, indeed was teaching it for 17 years, and did never talk or even thing about the conceptual problems. He was just sure that the superposition where microscopic things lasting nanoseconds. He acknowledge that he was wrong after the Aspect experiment, which changes his life, just trying to understand QM. The assumption of superposition *is* quantum mechanics. > I invite you to explicitly and exactly demonstrate where this erroneous > assumption is used in these solutions. up + down behave differently that a mixture of up and down particles. By linearity of both evolution and the tensor product O(up + down) = O up + O down = O-seeing up up + O-seeing down down. But from O’s viewpoint, it is just a self-duplication, and so he can expect to be undetermined on some of its future measurement. Using Gleason theorem, or perhaps simpler reasoning related to the square function and Pythagoras theorem, the wave gives the relative proportions similar to the Born rules. Technically, there is stem much debatable here, and in my opinion, this will eventually need the taking into account of the possible self-referential mode of the universal machine. > > Note that when we expand a system in a superposition of eigenstates, it is > usually assumed that the component eigenstates are orthogonal. Hence no > MUTUAL interference. That does not make sense to me. You might try to give an example of what could be a mutual interference. As long you agree that QM give the correct distribution of probability for the position of *one* particles confronted with many choices of path … > Where we get interference is between the wf itself, and some particular > eigenstate, when we apply the postulate for calculating the probability of > the occurrence of the eigenvalue of this eigenstate. OK. We agree then. But you assume unicity of reality or collapse. I am reasoning always in the non collapse theory, taking the SWE equation seriously whatever the base you choose to describe the universal wave. Of course, I use the fact that our brain has been implemented relatively to the position base. Then the relative states described by the wave strangely coincides with the facts up to now. > As you know, unlike classical E&M, in QM we must calculate the NORM-SQUARED > to get the probability, and since these functions are complex, the > interference terms necessarily appear in the calculation. It appears in nature. The amplitude of the wave is complex itself. You can say “Oh, but all that happens only in between measurements, but to get all decimal correct, your computation needs to emulate all the branches. > > As for double slit INTERPRETATION, I didn't claim that QM only works for slit > experiments. What I claimed is that for this particular situation, where the > incoming particle can be interpreted as a wave which goes through both slits > and interferes with itself, the superposition CAN BE INTERPRETED as being in > both states of the superposition simultaneously. But the math of the two slits is isomorphic of the math of the spin or of any qubits. The problem with QM is that it has to take the superposition seriously, and this leads to “many-histories”, or you need to say where QM get wrong, or where you hope QM could get wrong. To me, QM just confirms the fact that our “consciousness” here-and-now is related to an infinity of computations. Are you defending Bohm? At least I can understand his attempts, and I appreciate his honesty to accept the FTL, but that go too far for me. Read perhaps the David Albert Books. There are many good books. I think that the Many-world is the most conservative position. It adds the less of Magic to make sense. > >> I have asked for arguments to support this apparently superfluous >> assumption, but none of the usual suspects have ventured forward. Applying >> this assumption we get patent absurdities > > It shocking perhaps, but not absurd. > > No; in fact absurd -- to think Joe the Plumber can do one trial of a slit > experiment and create uncountable copies of himself, replete with his > memories! Physics isn't always intuitive as relativity shows, but this is > because we don't normally experience speeds near the SOL. Here QM explains why Joe does not feel the split too. > But what has occurred is that this insufficiency of human intuition has been > inappropriately generalized in such manner as to justify dispensing entirely > with common sense. AG Introducing FTL is more foolish than making reality just bigger,. >> like the MWI, among others. > > MWI is just QM taken seriously. > > > The MWI follows from the assumption in superposition which I claim is not > only extraneous, but false. Honestly you just astonish me. QM is the theory which assume that state are described by vectors in a complex infinite dimensional Hilbert space, and the whole point of such a space is that the sum of two states is again a state, and indeed, a not to much vague position is a sum of of much more vague set of momenta, position and momenta are superposition of each other. QM without superposition is like ships without mayonnaise and without ships. > IIRC, it isn't applied in the H-atom or tunneling phenomena analysis. ? ? ? ? > And where it IS used, we get the absurdities of the power of Joe the Plumber. > So if we trash this erroneous assumption, the MWI and cats alive and dead > simultaneously go away. AG QM go away. Actually I have to go too. You densely need to read Albert Books, or study any book on the foundation of QM. You talk like if you don’t see the problem. Nevertheless Everett type of physics is much closer to what we have to expect from mechanism in the cognitive science, so I am definitely biased, as I derive Everett (almost) from what any universal machine can discover looking inward “long enough”. Bruno > > The problem is that nobody find better, and all attempt to get the same > result with one world introduce things which are “more absurd” than many > world, like FTL influence, metaphysical indeterminacy, event without cause, > etc. It is a bit too much to satisfied a willing of being unique. >> Importantly, I don't have the burden of proof that the assumption is valid. >> That's the responsibility of the True Believers. AG > How do you explain the difference between a mixture of down and up particles, > and particles in the down + up state? > > If you write down how probabilities are calculated for mixtures, I believe I > will be able to explain why we get results that differ from superpositions. I > don't think it's a mystery. As for particles in the down + up state, I > contend that such states are not physically possible. That's why we don't see > them. In general, there can be a difference between what can be described or > exist mathematically, and what actually corresponds to a physical state. AG > > QM is the assumption. Are you arguing that QM is false? > > No. Just that there's an erroneous, unjustified assumption concerning the > INTERPRETATION of a superposition which leads to ridiculous results -- as > Erwin tried to show. But today, many physicists have fallen in love with the > illusion. To quote the Great Trumpist; SAD! AG > > Bruno >> >> IMO, this explanation doesn't work for several reasons, one of which is that >> the wf used in decoherence theory assumes the measuring device is put in >> place before decoherence occurs. But how is this possible with such a short >> decoherence time? Long before the device is attached and the experiment is >> performed, it has interacted with the environment, meaning that the wf on >> which decoherence is based, is impossible to establish. AG >> >> Do you know the book by David Albert “Quantum Mechanics and Experience”, it >> is quite good pedagogically, and he explains well the “problem”. He dmisloh >> Everett very badly (good for Everett!), and defend Bohm quite unconvincingly >> (for me at least). But he introduces very well the basic core theory, using >> only very elementary algebra. >> >> Bruno >>>>> Incidentally, when you earlier referred to a RIGHT/LEFT superposition, >>>>> did you mean circular polarization, or right and left directions in a SG >>>>> apparatus in relation to Up/Dn measurements? TIA, AG >>>>> >>>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <>. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> <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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>> <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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 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.
