On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:31:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? >>>>>>>>>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to >>>>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at >>>>>>>>> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root >>>>>>>>> of your misunderstanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I >>>>>>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: >>>>>>> "what does *interference* mean". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, >>>>>> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and >>>>>> instead >>>>>> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't >>>>>> understand "interference". AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, >>>>> and then generalize it.* >>>>> >>>>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know. >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's >>>> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's >>>> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG >>>> >>> >>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an >>> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a >>> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of >>> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. >>> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with >>> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If >>> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, >>> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not >>> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is >>> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2. AG >>> >> >> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different >> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One >> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one >> path is considered. AG >> > > My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply the > existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. One > needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the > probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the > probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle > can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to > understand how that can be. AG >
Now for the hard questions; in the case of S's cat, the wf = |alive>|source undecayed> + |dead>|source decayed>. if each wf component is considered as a wave, what are the probability amplitudes of each possible outcome before the box is opened? And what is the wf after decoherence has occurred but before the box is opened? 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/360cd599-37a0-4c1c-a860-f6fbdfd0398e%40googlegroups.com.
