On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 11:39:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand
>>> why a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane
>>> implies FTL,*
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to
>>> me. Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local
>>> perturbation which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane,
>> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which
>> tends to zero on infinity.
>> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical
>> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no
>> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a
>> physical universe. I would say.
>>
>
> *You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies
> in time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are,
> extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time
> and the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do
> with square integral functions. AG*
>
>
> Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are
> mathematical abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some
> circular wave. In QM you can handle something close to plane wave with
> distribution theory.
>
*You want to have your cake and eat it. Plane waves are solutions to ME's.
You want to reify all mathematics as having ontological status, implying
the MWI derivable from QM, but not plane waves. AG*
>
>> * |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am
>> not discussing it in this context. *
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or
>>> not as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about
>>> the nature of the superposition.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not
>> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG *
>>
>>
>> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about
>> the physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition.
>>
>
> *You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are
> INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition.
> *
>
>
> Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing
> the interpretation of the theory.
>
*Not necessary. For Copenhagen and Everett, the system represented by a
superposition is in all component states simultaneously. Everett just goes
further in saying the components continue to exist after measurement (in
other words), whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via
collapse. But I have discussing the first part of the interpretation of
superposition, not how Everett extends it, or the problem for Copenhagen in
the disappearance of the components upon measurement, except for the
measured outcome. Put simply, I am only dealing with the initial
interpretation of superposition, not the subsequent interpretation. No need
to discuss Copenhagen vs Everett. You want me to say it again? AG*
> *Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that
> all components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue
> against. AG*
>
>
> I understood, but you fail to explain all mentioned example
>
> * I'm not trying to explain everything, other than the fact that the
standard interpretation of superposition is in error. AG*
> like the two slits, or the difference of behaviour between a pure state
> and a mixed state.
>
*How does the interpretation of superposition I allege as erroneous
"explain" these phenomena? AFAICT, except for slit experiments, it's not
even applied! AG *
To say that the superposition is only a claculational device does to
work, as the two slits, and basically all superposition effect have
observable consequences.
*What SPECIFICALLY about superposition has observable consequences?** Since
eigenstate components of a superposition are orthogonal, they don't even
mutually interfere, so why assume they co-exist physically for the system
they represent? What added explanatory value exists in this INTERPRETATION?
Other than the case of slit experiments, the interpretation of
superposition I object to is totally unnecessary, except to imply the MWI
and the cat paradox, which IMO are plausible for the judgement impaired.
Human beings, by their actions, cannot invoke processes to create entire
universes. It's so far beyond the pale of what makes sense, I characterize
it as a mental dysfunction. AG*
So, just to understand you, I need to know if you are in the Copenhagen
> theory or in Everett theory, then we can discuss how to interpret the
> theory, but we have to agree clearly which theory we are discussing.
> Everett and Copenhagen are different theories, i.e. different set of
> assumptions, NOT different interpretations of a unique theory.
>
*They both have the same starting point wrt superposition, which is all I
am discussing, or want to discuss. AG*
>
> 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.
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.
