> On 16 Aug 2018, at 01:05, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:39:40 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, [email protected] >> <http://gmail.com/> 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. > > If you can explain all this without FTL in one unique physical reality, then > write a paper and publish, you will be famous. > > In the singlet non locality scenario, it does appear as if information moves > FTL, from one subsystem to another. However, when you consider that what is > instantaneously changing is the wf, which exists in the complex plane, it is > arguable that any kind of velocity is involved. AG > > Yes, maybe I should be famous. I think your confusion involves the meaning of > FTL, or indeed any velocity when discussing a change in a wf in response to a > measurement.
Measurement don’t change anything, except in the brain of the observers.That propagates at subliminal speed in a growing sphere entered on the local laboratory. > As previously stated, the wf exists in the complex plane, I guess you mean … in the Hilbert space. > so it's a fallacy to consider the wf changing at any velocity when it doesn't > exist in the real plane (or real volume if using 3 dimensional space). AG Complex numbers can be useful tools in any wave theory, like in electricity. But with quantum mechanics, the evidence is that the complex amplitude is real. If not, we just cannot explain the spin in all three direction. That is a point made particularly clear in Julian Swinger textbook on QM, (and perhaps even better explained by Townsend). We can explain away the use of complex numbers in most of wave theory, but not for the quantum wave. The complex amplitude have to be supposed to be physically real independently of us to get the eventual probability right. It is a peculiarity of QM. Bruno > > > 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 >> > <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 [email protected] <>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <>. >> 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
