On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: > > On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com <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 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.
