On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
*More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I
wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's
view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before
measurement*
I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out
the context that the system is not in an eigenstate /of the
variable measured/ before it is measured. That just means the
state NE is not North or East before you measure with your
North-or-East instrument.
Brent
*
*
*I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert,
that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the
eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it
is measured". *
What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?
It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate
of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half
UP and half DN. But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>
*IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states
of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to
measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim
by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is
in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition
even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%. *
You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is
different eigenstates simultaneously".
*Consequently, it's more logical -- indeed MUCH more logical -- to
assume that the system is NOT simultaneously in all these states, and
is indeed in NONE of them before measurement, which is consistent with
what I believe Bohr and CI assert. *
Depends on what you mean by "in all these states". It can certainly
have a component in "all these states", but not be in any one of them.
*This would seem to dispel a current deep seated myth about CM. Do you
understand and agree with my point? AG*
*
*
*On another issue, whether it's legitimate to write such a
superposition in terms of eigenstates that cannot presently be
measured. I think it is, because any ray in a Hilbert space can so
written (that is, any pure state) and such eigenstates MIGHT be
measurement with some advanced technology or concepts. So,
mathematically, such states can be written regardless of whether the
superposed eigenstates are presently measureable. AG*
Sure; which eigenstates can be measured is a problem of technology.
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/0983614d-6a6f-cdd6-7591-a9334e0c5a2d%40verizon.net.
