On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
> > > 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". > *If you go to 5:15 in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement. Clark and others adhere to the former view which I see as ridiculous, in part because the mathematics just says there's less than 100% probability of being in any of these states before measurement. Can a system really BE in a state with less than 100% probability? AG* > > *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* > > *Sorry; I meant CI, not CM. 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 measurable (note correction) with some > advanced technology or concepts. So, mathematically, such states can be > written regardless of whether the superposed eigenstates are presently > measurable. 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/60fd39b2-8be8-430d-be6d-cc4d2f3add9dn%40googlegroups.com.
