On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 3:27:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/10/2019 8:02 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:21:50 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/9/2019 3:52 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:28:38 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/8/2019 9:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> > I've argued this before, but it's worth stating again. It's a >>> > misintepretation of superposition to claim that a system described by >>> > it, is in all the component states simultaneously. As is easily seen >>> > in ordinary vector space, an arbitrary vector has an uncountable >>> > number of different representations. Thus, to claim it is in some >>> > specific set of component states simultaneously, makes no sense. Thus >>> > evaporates a key "mystery" of quantum theory, inclusive of S's cat and >>> > Everett's many worlds. AG >>> >>> No. It changes the problem to the question of why there are preferred >>> bases. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Who chose Alive and Dead, or Awake and Sleeping for the S. cat? Wasn't it >> the observer? >> >> >> Could the observer have chosen |alive>+|dead> and |alive>-|dead> as a >> basis? >> >> Brent >> > > *That's a great question and the answer is No, because, as you would say, > the pair (|Alive>, |Dead>), forms a "preferred" basis. We can only measure > Alive or Dead. However, the other pair you have above is a perfectly valid > state of the S cat system, a vector in the Hilbert Space of the system, and > presumably there is an uncountable set of other valid states in Hilbert > Space. This means that the interpretation of a superposition of the first > pair is just as valid as the interpretation of any other pair; namely, that > the system is in both components simultanously. But this is obvious > nonsense given the plethora of valid bases, so the interpretation fails. > THIS is my point. Am I mistaken? AG* > > > The way I read what you posted above is that it would "make no sense" to > say a ship on a heading of 345deg is simultaneously moving on a 270deg and > 90deg heading. I think that does make sense. The interesting question is > could it be moving on some other heading? The answer might be no, it's in > the Panama Canal. In other words there may be something else in physics > that determines perferred basis, even thought he bare Schrodinger equation > doesn't seem to. > > brent >
No, not what I meant. Rather, a ship with a heading of 345 deg, could be represented as moving on a 270deg and 90deg heading, *as well as an uncountable combination of other headings.* I think this fundamental misinterpretation of superposition of states leads to the MWI and a host of other "mysteries" alleged in QM. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/670b4331-d1e5-4e40-b2c3-87da92da3e59%40googlegroups.com.
