On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:36 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> > > > 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. > > > No, it is interfering with itself. Don't be mislead by the water/sound > wave analogy. > > You can use "itself" only if this "it" can be in multiple locations and heading in different directions. > 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. > How do do you explain the experiment with beam splitters and recombining light at a half silvered mirror to interfere and only be reflected one way? > > 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. > > Do you have a source I could read on this? Jason > 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 [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. > -- 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.
