On 3/7/2020 7:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:33:05 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



    On 3/7/2020 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
    On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]
    <javascript:>> wrote:

        On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
        wrote:


            Sean Carroll
            @seanmcarroll
            ·
            What really happens to Schrödinger’s cat is that it
            becomes entangled with its environment, so that the wave
            function comes to describe multiple almost-classical
            worlds! Happens to all of us, and nicely explained in
            this @veritasium video.

            https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1235999175428333568
            <https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1235999175428333568>

            @philipthrift


        I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies,
        but I can't recall what they were. Many of the quantum
        paradoxes arise due to a particular interpretation of
        superposition, namely, that all alternatives happen
        simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition
        be interpreted to mean that each alternative has a
        probability of occurrence and nothing more? TIA, AG


    In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly
    what it means.

    The problem is saying exactly when the Schroedinger equation stops
    describing the evolution and the alternative happens, i.e. the wf
    collapses.  In QBism it's when you learn the result and you update
    your knowledge.  In the Transactional interpretation it's when an
    interaction is realized.  I think Zurek's quantum Darwinism could
    be given this interpretation: when the cross terms in the pointer
    basis become sufficiently small.

    Brent


I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems, such as forward (or backward?) in time signaling.

Ruth Kastner has tried to fix that by postulating a possibility space where the offer wave elicits the answer wave; so it's not in spacetime.

Does a comparable problem arise when using Heisenberg's formulation of QM? AG

Matrix mechanics is equivalent to Schoedinger's equation, so I think it has the same problem of having an evolution phase and a measurement phase.

Brent

--
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/c60275da-93a4-4060-f718-97871d3ebf8d%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to