On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer virtually solely to ensembles of measurements of identically prepared systems and not to individual systems. Is this limitation the reason it is not generally accepted, as I believe is the case? Anyone can reply. 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/70933c22-32a2-4315-87fe-f0bb39876030%40googlegroups.com.
