On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical >>> computers. There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate >>> something faster; but the domain and range is the same. >>> >>> So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is merely a >>> convenient (and very accurate) tool? >>> >>> >> Tool for what? Predicting probabilities of finally measured values? >> >> What then can we say about the intermediate values and the computation >> itself? Does it exist and happen, or does the final result merely >> materialize magically like the live or dead cat? >> >> >> Does the spot on the screen behind two slits materialize magically? Or >> arise as a consequence of the interference in the one world? >> >> In many-worlds, all possible screen spots occur in different worlds. But >> the separation into distinct worlds happens only on decoherence at the >> screen -- the interference all happens in the original single world. >> > > What is the photon in each world interfering with? > > > It's a wave, so it's interfering with itself. Just like water or sound > waves. > You are saying "a photon is a wave" as if that is an explanation and to avoid the main point. If a photon is a wave, and it is interfering with other waves, then in other words, it's interfering with other photons. On that we agree. But where did those other photons come from? How did they get to be in different positions going in different directions? Why do these "waves" (photons) behave in all the same ways as photons, they reflect off mirrors, pass through strained glass (only if the glass is the same color as the photon), are blocked by opaque objects, travel at c, etc? > > It's many shadow partners in other worlds. World is a confusing term > unless we define it. > > > I agree. Frequently, many-worlders follow Deutsch and have a schizophrenic > attitude to "worlds" -- they are either any component of any possible > superposition, or the semi-classical endpoint of the process of > decoherence. In the first case, "worlds", as components of a superposition, > can interfere. In the second case, worlds are effectively orthogonal and > cannot interfere. Equivocating between these meanings causes endless > confusion -- and idiot physics. > > I always use the term "world" in the second sense, so worlds are > orthogonal and cannot interfere. > > We might also say the system of the photon is in many states, while the > rest of the system (us, the screen) remain in one state, until we interact > with the many-state photon system. So in that sense, you could argue the > screen and us are in one world until the decoherence. But the system of > the photons can't properly be described as any singe photon system. > > > Because the photon is a wave. The attempt to eliminate waves or fields > from physics in favour of a purely particle ontology failed. Feynman was > most disappointed by this, but if you think you can do better than > Feynman......... > "Newton thought that light was made up of particles--he called them "corpuscles"--and he was right. We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud--there are just fewer of them. [...] I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have to gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it *does* behave--like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." -- Richard Feynman Jason -- 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.
