On 2/8/2021 9:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
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. *
They can't be regarded a pre-existing states. In silver atom SG example the pre-existing state is know by preparation to be UP, so the LEFT and RIGHT states are not pre-existing (except as possibilities).
*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*
That appears to be a semantic question about the usage of the term "be in a state". The math says that the state vector can be described in terms to the components of any set of basis states, in which case it will in general have non-zero components from many or all of those basis states....just like a 3-vector in Cartesian coordinates can have x, y, z components and there are infinitely many ways of choosing x, y, and z. If you choose them just right the 3-vector may be (0,0,1) and be a z-state eigenvector.
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/cd9a9ad8-c8ec-1d2e-44d7-2a874e21fa6a%40verizon.net.
