On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:20:43 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 6:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/11/2019 2:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/11/2019 11:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> > 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. >>>>> >>>>> But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique >>>>> representation, >>>>> then there is more than one representation. Some of those consist of >>>>> a >>>>> linear composition of components. You seem to infer that because >>>>> there >>>>> is no unique representation then representations in terms of >>>>> components >>>>> is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent, they are >>>>> logically equivalent; each one implies the other. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are valid. What's >>>> invalid >>>> is singling out one representation and asserting the system is >>>> simultaneously >>>> in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG >>>> >>> >>> I wasn't clear in one or more of my previous comments, but the latter is >>> what I meant. >>> All representations are valid; basic linear algebra. But to ascribe >>> ontological status to >>> one particular set of components, when in general there exists an >>> uncountable set, is >>> a fallacy. I thought I illustrated that point with S's cat. AG >>> >>> >>> Contrast the SG experiments with silver atoms. In that case the >>> different bases are equally real, but an atom can be in definite spin >>> state, say UP, which is a superposition of LEFT and RIGHT. This can be >>> confirmed by measuring in the LEFT/RIGHT basis. So did the LEFT/RIGHT >>> components exist when the atom was in the UP state? That sounds like a >>> metaphysical or semantic question about the meaning of "being in" a >>> state. But Schroedinger's cat is different because it is impossible to >>> measure in the |LIVE>+|DEAD> and |LIVE>-|DEAD> basis. That was >>> Schroedinger's point that this superposition is absurd. But why is it >>> absurd? The best answer seems to be Zurek's einselection, meaning it's* >>> not* because there's an uncountable set of bases in the LIVE/DEAD >>> hyperplane, but because only |LIVE> and |DEAD> are stable states against >>> environmental interaction. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> There may be some exceptions for my claim. I need to study the silver >> atom case and get back to you. But in the case of S's cat, I think the >> problem is with the alleged quantum states of |Live> and |Dead>. What is >> the operator that has those states as eigenstates? If it can't be >> specified, maybe the construct makes no sense. AG >> >> >> Well none, or at least none that anyone could possibly implement as a >> Hermitean projection operator of some instrument. Schrodinger just chose >> ALIVE/DEAD to emphasize how absurd it was to attribute superpositions to >> macroscopic objects. But he didn't know *why* it was absurd. He could >> have stuck to just the radioactive atom decaying or the geiger counter tube >> detecting it, but that wouldn't have been obviously absurd. >> >> Brent >> > > I agree with that! If it shows that superpositions cannot be attributed to > macroscopic objects, then perhaps the idea that everything is quantum is > precarious, if not false. And if he didn't need a cat, just a radioactive > source, what would the consequences have been? AG >
Maybe Schroedinger wanted to show that superposition was inherently absurd, when interpreted as a radioactive source being decayed and undecayed simultaneously -- which is what I have been claiming on other grounds. 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/830d4b7e-ada3-4224-9f7c-62faae793fa5%40googlegroups.com.
