On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for quantum phenomena. *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics* *Richard P. Feynman* 1951 http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory* Henry Wilkes September 28, 2018 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf @philipthrift -- 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/5dcda888-4b2f-4d40-bacb-689e86d06613%40googlegroups.com.
