On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 9:53:29 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/10/2019 6:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 3:37:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > IOW, you can think of the wf representing a heading of 345deg, and since > the basis in Hilbert Space is *not* unique, you can imagine that very > *same* wf composed of *different* components. Thus, if it's claimed that > one set of basis components simultaneously represents the wf, one can also > find another, *different* set of basis components to simultaneously > represent the wf. It therefore makes no sense to claim that any set of > basis components simultaneously represents the wf. Specifically, the > quantum claim that a system can be in several component states > simultaneously, is bogus, since the components are *not unique*. AG > > > But my example of the ship shows that it's a commonplace that a vector can > be represented as a sum of components in infinitely many ways...it's a > trivial result of being a vector space. It's just your prejudice that > there has to be a unique "really, really real" representation. > > Brent >
I have no prejudice. I do *not* insist on a unique representation; nor do I believe that. Rather, I am saying that SINCE there is no unique representation, it's a fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert that the components in one representation, simultaneously represent the wf. So, for example, in the case of S's cat, it's a fallacy to assert that the cat is simultanously Alive and Dead. It's the lack of recognition of the NON-UNIQUENESS that is responsible for the misinterpretation of the superposition and many (not all) alleged weird interpretations of 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/0299c781-6831-4c18-a045-f0780806f5ab%40googlegroups.com.
