On 11/27/2018 12:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:05:04 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:49:51 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-6,
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:00:50 PM UTC, Philip
Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 8:43:35 AM UTC-6,
[email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:27:46 AM UTC,
Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM
UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
*
*
*I checked the postulates in Feynman's
Sums Over Histories (in link provided by
Phil) and I see nothing related to waves,
as expected, and thus nothing about
collapse of anything. I would suppose the
same applies to Heisenberg's Matrix
Mechanics; no waves, no collapse. I
suppose you could say they just produce
correct probabilities, and imply nothing
about relative states other than their
probabilities (which wave mechanics does),
but certainly nothing about consciousness.
To summarize: you're right that they are
"no collapse" theories, but IMO they say
nothing about consciousness. AG*
In terms of the path-integral (PI)
interpretation [ interesting lecture:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/path-integral-interpretation-quantum-mechanics
<https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/path-integral-interpretation-quantum-mechanics>
], there is in effect no waves or wave
function, just paths, or histories, in the
sum-over-histories (SOH) terminology.
There is still "decoherence" in the SOH (a
single history is ultimately "realized"), but
it could be called "selection": a single
history is selected from the total ensemble of
multiple and interfering histories. E.g. a
single point on a screen is "hit" by a photon
in the double-slit experiment.
*Does "selection" add any insight to the
measurement problem; that is, why do we get what
we get? And if not, what is its value? TIA, AG *
If you look at it as a "selection of the fittest" (one
history surviving from an ensemble of histories), then
it's like a form of quantum Darwinism. The quantum
substrate is a cruel world where all histories (but
one) die.
That's not an explanation; rather, a vacuous statement of
the result. AG
But that is a criticism of Darwinism (*natural selection*) in
general.
*
*
*Ridiculous comparison IMO. Darwinism posits a changing
environment and competition among species for niches. Nothing
comparable in Quantum Darwinism other than all outcomes fail
except for one which succeeds in each single trial, which we knew
from the get-go. AG*
*Quantum Darwinism* is a theory claiming to explain the
emergence of the classical world
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics>from the
quantum world
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics> as due to *a
process of **Darwinian
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>natural
selection <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection>*;
where the many possible quantum states
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_states> are selected
against in favor of a stable pointer state
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointer_state>.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Darwinism
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Darwinism> ]
- pt
As for "competition for niches", the histories are in a sense
competing. Perhaps there is some conservation principle at work, so
only one history can win.
I don't know. Physicists don't know. We're even. :)
In a delayed quantum erasure experiment I wonder if you would be
possible to make a weak measurement on the photon to be erased? Would
you get an intermediate result in the interference pattern?
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.
