On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> 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.*
>
>
>
> 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 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.
> 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 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.
