On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the
>> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed
>> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality
>> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or
>> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.*
>>
>
> Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining
> many worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go
> through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious
> conclusion that many worlds exist.
>
> > *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. *
>>
>
> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms
> be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve
> and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in
> fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or
> Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity.
>
GRW may simply be incomplete. What if this is a phenomenology for the
conversion of quantum bits, which have unitary evolution or are unital,
into Jordan algebraic forms of information. Unitary evolution with U(t) =
e^{-iHt/ħ}, obeys U_{tt} = UU^†U , which is a form of the geodesic
deviation equation. The Jordan algebra is instead of commutators U•V= ½(UV
+ VU), and the generators are real valued such as e^{-E/kT}. These algebras
include the exceptional algebras, in particular the octonions of real
valued elements. The switch between then is then an intertwiner e^{-iHt/ħ}
↔ e^{-E/kT}.
I am not making a complete pitch for GRW, but I think in some ways it may
not be much worse that MWI. The collapse mechanism may simply be a way that
quantum bits transform into another form. Maybe this is a generalization of
quantum mechanics.
>
> > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds
>> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can
>> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then
>> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I
>> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is
>> correct,*
>>
>
> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The
> Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but
> not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many
> Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the
> reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits,
> but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went
> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one.
> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
> interpretation is correct.
>
> This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
> so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
> different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again
> and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous
> evidence that the photon went through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it
> went through slot B only, and that's what causes the interference pattern.
>
> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 8b4m
>
The only way I can think this experiment would work is if these observers
are themselves obeying Schrodinger equation. This then may set up a sort of
Wigner's friend problem. The interference fringes might be observed by
different observers to be entirely different. This restores locality, but
reality or objectivity has been abandoned. In that setting I am not sure
the MWI is that clearly demonstrated.
LC
--
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/3f2974e1-4581-4a92-8737-fd923bed00b0n%40googlegroups.com.
