On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you >>> explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. >>> >> >>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not >>> there? >>> > >>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both slits in >>> the same world...thus being non-local. >>> >>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave of >>> histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one world” is >>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism. >>> >> >> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a measurement >> must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you fall in love >> with the implications of this error, you are firmly in woo-woo land with >> the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this illusion / >> delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG * >> > > *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one particle > at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be because > particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any > event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes us > down a deeper rabbit hole. AG* > > > Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits. If > you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a > “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in > parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by > the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all > results obtained in the parallel branches. >
*No. It's all nonsense. AG * > > If you can explain all this without FTL in one unique physical reality, > then write a paper and publish, you will be famous. > > Bruno > > > > > > > >> >> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > Brent >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
