> On 28 Jul 2018, at 14:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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
I assume only that 2+2=4 independently of me. I believe that if I could die, that would have no consequence on the distribution of primes. I have to, because something like the Church-Turing thesis would have not any sense without such minimal realism. It is implicit in the proof of the existence of universal machineries (in the Turing sense). Then I show why and how to derive, not the many-worlds but the whole of physics (including plausibly the universal wave) from the machine’s introspection. It works. (Until now). >>> >>> |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), Yes. Everett assumes simply that the physicists obey to the physical laws. > whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via collapse. Yes. They have to assume dome dualism, and a physicist does no more obey to QM. > 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 You have failed to explain me how you interpret the superposition in the case of photon in superposed state, or just the two slits, which as Feynman said contains the full “mystery” of QM. I have some idea of you try to defend, but I certainly missed the details. >> 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, But if one thing is a counterexample, your proposal has to be improved. I still don’t know if you accept the standard formalism of QM, where superposition is the main concept. > other than the fact that the standard interpretation of superposition is in > error. AG What is your interpretation of superposition? To say that it is just an instrumental notion does not put much light on this question, and is typically wrong in all cases that I mentioned. I just try to understand. > > 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 That makes no sense to me. Superposition is unavoidable everywhere in theoretical and applied QM. Even the discovery of the transistor and the whole of electronic is born from taking seriously QM and its consequence. How do you explain the tunnelling effect. Or anything in chemistry, even the Mendeleev table of elements makes no sense to me without taking the wave equation seriously. > > 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? That the amplitude of the ave is a sum of two amplitudes related to the two slits, and that we need to make the sum to get the correct null probability explaining the interference fringe which appears even when sending the photon one by one (or almost, as “one photon” is a difficult experimental thing to obtain). Superposition appears in all wave theory. The weird thing in QM is that what undulate is an amplitude of probability of some histories. > 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? By the tensor product linearity. > 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. If you doubt superposition, even before a “collapse”, I am not sure if you are still talking about quantum mechanics. The two slits just illustrate well how QM works. When a system is isolate, it behaves like a wave, in all circumstances except for the know selection rules. Some very precise physical attribute do not get superposed, like charge, but position can always be superposed, and that effects in present in all the manifestation of the wave. You say interpretation, but your critics seems to bear on the QM theory itself. > 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 Maybe it is just because you have a niece conception of what a physical universe is. QM is phenomenological, once we assume mechanism. You need eventually to believe only in 2+2=4, and the fact that the brain might be Turing emulable. Then the many-worlds is an appearance entirely predicted by 2+2 = 4 & Co, or by the two combinatory axioms that I gave yesterday. > > 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 But then, your critics is the critics of the core QM theory, not on any interpretation. Superposition is mandatory in all wave theory, and quantum mechanics is mainly a theory of wave. Only the interpretation of the wave is usually discussed. My feeling is that you believe that QM is simply wrong. Bruno > > 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.
