On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, [email protected] <javascript:> 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.* > > > > Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added > to a wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical > waves, like on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard > to interpret. They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the > amplitude gives the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to > the fact that the amplitude is physically real with objective sharable > consequence. > > > > * 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? * > > > I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would > entail a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse > occurs, especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to > occur from the observer relative position in the universal wave. > > > > *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. A*G > > > Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac > superposition as physical reality. > > > > > >> 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. 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. 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. * > > > > It is a new axiom in the theory, before leading to any interpretation. I > agree with you, the collapse is just a coquetry added to avoid being > oneself and the (local) physical reality multiplied. But there is no > experimental evidence for such a collapse, and it entails FTL, > indeterminacy. With the SWE without collapse, the probabilities come only > from the impossibility to know which branch of the universal wave we are > in, like with mechanism we cannot know which computations support us. QM > confirms Mechanism here. > > > > > *I have asked for the justification many times, but no takers. * > > > In this list, few people believe in a collapse. > > > > *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! * > > > > That makes no sense. I can’t explain neither the two slits, nor the > working of an interferometer, nor the hydrogen atom, nor anything, without > the superposition principle. >
*You still have absolutely no clue what I am arguing here. Yes, best to end this discussion. AG* > The collapse is never used, but the superposition is just a consequence of > the fact that state are represented by wave, or by “vector” in a Hilbert > space (which mainly a linear (vectorial) space with some scalar product). > > > > *It just creates contradictions.* > > > Where? > > > > * Nor do I discuss Everett insofar as it's the dumbest theory I have ever > heard or, or can imagine. * > > > Everett theory is just the SWE. It is the addition of the collapse which > is the “dumb” move, I would say. > > Bruno > > > > > > *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. 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] <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.
