> On 25 Jul 2018, at 22:03, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:30:34 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, <[email protected] <>> a écrit : >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, [email protected] <> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, [email protected] <> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, [email protected] <> 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) ? >>> >>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing >>> about. Thanks for your time. AG >> >> >> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your >> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no >> superposition, >> >> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG >> >> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for >> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we >> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in >> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. >> >> Thank you. >> >> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition >> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use >> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do >> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of >> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form >> a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT >> unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard >> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems >> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead >> simultaneously. AG > > > > I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be > the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical > discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical > state. > > Not true. In classical E&M, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get > another solution to ME's. Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which > is understandable, but why don't you object to classical plane wave > solutions? Don't you think a FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at > infinity, along the plane, extended forever? Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM > is its probability prediction, which is *different* from what one would > expect classically. This is because the wf is complex, and because the > probability is calculated by taking the norm-squared, one gets a different > prediction for the interference, which manifests mathematically by the > existence of cross terms. AG > > That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic > physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of > interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with > probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, > up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, > each of which pass with a probability 1/2. > > Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are > using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the collapse > postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever reducse into > a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum linearity. > > Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument measure. All > state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those are real, we > can test them. > > That's my point! Since any state is expressible in multiple bases, no basis > is unique.
OK. > So it's a fallacy to claim that a system in a superposition of states is in > all component states of one particular basis simultaneously. AG That is ambiguous. But the fact is that the SWE predicts that if I look to a cat in the a+d state, measuring its a/d state, I put myself in the superposition seeing a cat alive + seeing a cat dead. There is no contradiction, because the SWE explains why I cannot feel the consciousness differentiation or the split. > > A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is exploited in quantum > computing, where some algorithm can superposed many computations at once, > and, despite we cannot observe each individual result, we can test global > information on all results, like "are they all the same or different? or > question of parity of results, etc. > > The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse taken > seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A world > can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, but it > is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have good reason > to disbelieve such worlds). > > The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to calculate > probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not work. Nature > confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable difference > between mixed state and superposition. > > In a superposition of states, the probability depends on the *interference* > between the wf of the system and the eigenfunction whose eigenvalue is being > measured. CMIIAW, but for mixed states the probability is calculated > differently; simply by taking the norm-squared of the amplitude of one of > states. If so, why would you expect the outcome for superposition and mixed > states to be the same? OK. But this means that you need to attribute some physical reality to the cross term, and thus to the components of the superposition. > Indeed, one would expect the observed difference, so I don't see how this > result in any way impacts or defeats my claim about the fallacy of > interpreting a superposition to mean the system is in all component states of > a superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY. How do you interpret the cat state a + d? It seems to me that you do assume a collapse of the wave. You defend Copenhagen, it seems to me. > Moreover, although I am not too familiar with quantum computing, offhandISTM > that a superposition of two states, can be understood NOT as simultaneously > in both states, but as toggling between two states. Then QM is false, or you allude to a new interpretation that you might elaborate on. I guess such toggling should be testable. But from Bell+Aspect, such toggling would need FTL influence. Then if the toggling is quick enough, I will still feel seing both a cat alive and dead, by dovetailing through the two histories through that toggling. It looks like a variant of the many-worlds. > If so, in what way is this fatal to my reinterpretation of superposition? AG The toggling shows you make the superposition enough real to get Everett-Griffith-Omnes "many histories” view of the physical reality. > > We can add hidden variable, or Bohm’s Guiding particles Potential, but this > has been shown to lead to FTL (even instantaneous) influence(*) and other > magic things or to many-worlds. > > In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey > Everett quantum mechanics, i.e. that some collapse occurs somewhere, > instantaneously. > > I never discussed collapse, one way or another. I just claim that there is > apparently no justification for the Copenhagen(?) INTERPRETATION of > superposition in QM. I have asked for the justification many times, but no > takers. I don't think they can justify it. Of course, generally, postulates > are not amenable to justification, but in the case of superposition, the > interpretation I object to has a unique property; it's never applied in a > calculation! It just creates contradictions. Nor do I discuss Everett insofar > as it's the dumbest theory I have ever heard or, or can imagine. AG > > In 1927 Einstein gave a simple thought experience, the one particle in a > sphere, and explain that if the collapse is physical, it has to violate > special relativity. > > Why aren't you worried that plane wave solutions to Maxwell's Equations (ME), > ostensibly violate SR? AG Because such wave solution have no observable consequences. They do seems like a mathematical by-product. In the case of quantum superposition, we do have the indirect evidence of the other path being taken, in a way or another, like your toggling theory illustrates itself. Bruno > > Hs EPR paper is closer to an experimental treatment, as Bell has shown, and > QM seems to be vindicate, so the choice is really between many-worlds, or > the abandon of special relativity (or the bandit that QM says anything about > the physical reality). > > Bruno > > > -- > 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 > <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 [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.
