> On 25 Jul 2018, at 22:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, <agrays...@gmail.com <>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@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 <> 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 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.
