On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:51:12 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:53:29 PM UTC-5, 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 suppose if a ship was sent through double straits (A,B) to a linear > array of docks D(x), then some angle pairs (A,D(x)), (B,D(x)) would > interfere with each other and some would reinforce. > > :) > > @philipthrift >
I'm trying to make an important claim, so I don't appreciate jokes on this thread. 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/a45c7015-b1d1-4602-9642-7b9bbb60c931%40googlegroups.com.
