On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
These are oligo-tetraphenyl porphyrins enriched with fluoroalkyl-sulfanyl chains. @philithrift -- 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/5b1630ed-6d4e-4b21-8b84-a13232ffcd69%40googlegroups.com.
