On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, >>>>>>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> both states simultaneously? AG >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> None, since it isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't >>>> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I >>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives. >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed >>> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG >>> >> >> >> No. >> >> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously. >> >> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it. >> >> @philipthrift >> > > I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that > imply there is no interference? AG >
I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of the wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or epistemological) interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly because it denies the existence of interference. What's your assessment? TIA, 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/163c7785-0557-477f-9293-a601316770ad%40googlegroups.com.
