On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: > > On 14-10-2018 15:24, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation > > that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, > > versus the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in before > > measurement? Is the latter interpretation equivalent to Einstein > > Realism? And if so, is this the interpretation allegedly falsified by > > Bell experiments? AG > > It is indeed inconsistent with QM itself as Bell has shown. Experiments > have later demonstrated that the Bell inequalities are violated in > precisely the way predicted by QM. This then rules out local hidden > variables, therefore the information about the outcome of a measurement > is not already present locally in the environment. > > Saibal >
What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system in a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- contradicting the intuitive appeal of Einstein realism -- when that assumption is not used in calculating probabilities (since the component states are orthogonal)? AG -- 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.
