On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 4:03:46 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:10, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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]> 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 >
I have no idea what you're talking about. If anyone else does, please speak up. AG > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> 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]. >> 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] <javascript:>. > 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/905bcdd6-6d0c-40ae-b52a-a2621d8d16da%40googlegroups.com.
