> On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:10, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:57:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 23:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
>>>>>> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
>>>>>> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brent
>>>>> 
>>>>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>>>>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>>>>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>>>>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>>>>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
>>>>> which-way is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through 
>>>>> the slits in the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both 
>>>>> slits. AG
>>>> 
>>>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>>>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>>>> experiment).
>>>> 
>>>> Brent
>>>> 
>>>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>>>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>>>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>> 
>>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>>> detector in the experiment.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
>>> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
>>> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
>>> observations being made. AG 
>>> 
>>> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
>>> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
>>> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
>>> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
>>> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
>>> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
>>> experimental results demonstrate. AG
>> 
>> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to the 
>> observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are never 
>> destroyed,
>> 
>> 
>> I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer sees 
>> interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
>> exists. How does your model explain this? AG 
> 
> Take the cat C, assuming it well isolated in its box. The cat is in the state 
> 1/sqrt(2) (a + d). Now imagine that the box was not so well isolated, and 
> some particle P interact with it. Let us describe the state of the particle, 
> in case the cat would ba alive by P_a, and P_d if the cat was dead. As the 
> cat is in the state a + d, the new state is:
> 1/sqrt(2) (P_a a + P_d d). OK?
> 
> If I was ware of that particles, I could in principle obtain interference 
> pattern from that (pure) superposition. In particular, I could erase the 
> “memory” of the interaction of the particle, so that I can factor again P 
> from the state above, and get back the interference available from a + d.
> 
> But if I cannot track that particle, I am unable to do that, and the 
> interaction with the particle has destroyed my mean to get back to the a + d 
> state, and I am confronted with what I will take as a mixed state. It looks 
> like a collapse, but it is only because the superposition of the cat has 
> leaked to the environment in a way making impossible for me to get back to 
> the a + d state. 
> 
> So, there is no collapse, but the fact that the superposition has leaked in 
> the environment, without me knowing any details on this, makes the state of 
> the cat equivalent to a mixture of a and d state. FAPP, the cat is either 
> dead or alive after that unknown and untrackable information.
> 
> We see that a measurement is only an entanglement, and we don’t need a 
> collapse postulate to explain why even an “unknown measurement made by some 
> cosmic particle” prevents me to keep the superposition of the cat available 
> to me.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Forget about collapse or no collapse; forget about cats.

I cannot really do this when confronted with a superposition. To get the 
observed mixed state from the SWE only, I need to consider the superposition of 
myself, even if I observe only an electron.




> The fact is that with electrons or whatever, sometimes we see interference 
> patterns, and sometime not. In the latter case it occurs when which-way 
> information exists, and it doesn't matter if we use or observe that data by 
> instruments or by human observers.

Exactly, that is the main reason to choose “MW” instead of a collapse.


> I don't see how your previous message remotely offers an explanation. AG

Well, in once case we can factor me on the a + d, or up + down state, but once 
a particle that I am unaware of has interact with the object (micro or macro) 
described by a + d, or up + down, I can no more factorise the wave, and I can 
see only a mixed state. Reread my last post with this in mind, it is very basic 
quantum mechanics (without collapse).

Bruno




> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>     but assuming that the observers are machines and that they obey to QM 
>> explains entirely why they feel like memorising that the interference have 
>> disappeared, and why they are locally right about this.
>> 
>> Either the observer obeys QM, and inherits the superposition of what they 
>> are observing through measurement/entanglement, or QM is false for the 
>> observer, and we have to wait for some theory of what is an observer, 
>> together with some criteria for when and where we can use QM.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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] <javascript:>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9facd6dd-7ab5-483a-84c9-83f58b9c7c92%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9facd6dd-7ab5-483a-84c9-83f58b9c7c92%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04322a49-feef-4f0c-97ce-e5ae51c9e5ef%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04322a49-feef-4f0c-97ce-e5ae51c9e5ef%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/A5002BEA-9726-4440-9425-43523472B098%40ulb.ac.be.

Reply via email to