On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:43:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
I don't quite follow the radium with the cat in the box, or whatever it is,
but this should be the same:
Suppose there is a computer running in a box with the cat, and the computer
is hooked to a device that will release poison gas, and the computer has a
hardware QRNG chip in it (so it generates a truly random stream of 0s and
1s, one bit per s seconds). If
011101001010
is ever generated then the computer sets off the poison gas and kills the
cat.
The cat is going to be alive of dead after x amount of time (there is no
need to look inside the box).
The cat is not entangled with the computer.
The computer's quantum "state" (such as it is) is being resolved every time
the QRNG chip outputs a 0 or 1, but the cat has nothing to do with it.
@philipthrft
--
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/38757156-f0b3-4c3b-ac32-6dd5b8b04235%40googlegroups.com.
