On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 9:40:10 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
It wasn't a joke. What I call a "ship" above can be done with a *2000-atom molecule* in a double slit experiment (latest news). Now a 2000-atom molecule is not as big as ship, but it should provide what you need to know, If you think about it. @philipthrift -- 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/490f08d6-c3e8-4066-b8d5-5b6a41c1665a%40googlegroups.com.
