From: *Jason Resch* <jasonre...@gmail.com <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
From: *Jason Resch* <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
From: *Jason Resch* <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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.
No, it is interfering with itself. Don't be mislead by the water/sound
wave analogy.
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?
They aren't.
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?
Ah, the mysteries of quantum physics. Photons do not have a purely
classical description. Get used to it.
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
Feynman was wrong when he wrote this. Even he eventually saw that this
was wrong -- it couldn't be made to work.
Bruce
--
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.
