On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:40:42 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/11/2019 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 > > > But that's not absurd, because it is possible to have a radioactive atom > that is isolated from all environment and other degrees of freedom and so > it might exist in a superposition. >
But if you amplify the micro superposition and throw in a cat, you get an absurdity. Maybe Schroedinger was *also* trying to show that the interpretation of *micro* superposition is not correct. AG This is how quantum computers gain power compared to classical computers. > Qubits exist in superpositions. But it's hard to keep them cold enough and > isolated enough for long enough to computer something. > > Brent > -- 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/95ce8d0f-028f-49b5-9055-2172cee8331b%40googlegroups.com.
