On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 7:13 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/11/2021 9:53 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 11-07-2021 02:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > >> On 7/10/2021 5:35 PM, smitra wrote: > >>> On 11-07-2021 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour. > >>>>> > >>>>> It does so, otherwise the experiment would have proven that QM is > >>>>> invalid. > >>>> > >>>> So, in your opinion, the quantum mechanical analysis given in the > >>>> paper is wrong. > >>> > >>> It is correct, it's just that your conclusion about the MWI based on > >>> that paper is incorrect. Escaping infrared photons and the > >>> decoherence this causes are totally irrelevant. Whether or not an > >>> interference pattern can be detected is not relevant to the question > >>> of whether or not a superposition exists when we know that it exist > >>> and it has no decohered. It's just that you then can't reproduce one > >>> particular line of evidence for the validity of quantum mechanics in > >>> that particular experiment. > >>> > >>> If I prepare the state of a particle in a superposition and let > >>> this interact in a certain way, then we know how this state will > >>> evolve. If this evolution involves interactions with many particles, > >>> then the system will decohere. Then it may be true that we cannot > >>> distinguish the state of the system from being in a pure or mixed > >>> state in practice due to not being able to conduct an interference > >>> experiment involving a very large number of particles, but quantum > >>> mechanics still tells us that the superposition exists and that if > >>> we were to conduct the right sort of interference experiment, we > >>> would see an interference that would prove that the state is not a > >>> mixed state. > >> > >> But does it exist if part of the information has crossed the Hubble > >> boundary? Then there is no experiment, even in principle, that would > >> prove the state is not a mixed one. > >> > > > > The theories that tell you that there is such a thing like a Hubble > > boundary, also tell you that information does not vanish. We can now > > detect photons from galaxies that have always receded from us faster > > than light. > > ?? I think that's a contradiction. > It's worse than that -- it's gibberish. > > So, that's information we're that has leaked away from those galaxies > > that does objectively exists. To prove that a state is a pure state > > one can just point to the way the state was prepared and invoke > > quantum mechanics. It's not necessary to demonstrate interference to > > prove that quantum mechanics is still valid. > > So, then you agree with Bruce that so long as the which-way information > exists in those outgoing photons, the interference pattern will show up? > I think you might have meant that as long as the which-way information exists (has not been quantum erased), then no interference is visible. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLQ1UWXApB5Ah3Qa0OWx2_G1ZJRKqVw4kzawqLKAMrKPsw%40mail.gmail.com.
