On 14-05-2022 03:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 5:51 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict
a
definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic
theories.
Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well
defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results
and
be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you
don't do
this, you are not doing physics.
Tell that to the army of people who pounce on every anomaly that
appears in analyses of partial data from the LHC or Tevatron. Every
anomaly produces a slew of papers, all proposing "explanations" of the
anomaly. This is an industry, it is not physics. Generally the
anomalies go away with time and further data -- there are no "well
defined hypotheses" at work here.
These are well defined hypotheses. They then explain the anomaly, but
not much else. They are not going to be accepted as a promising
candidate for a new theory unless a lot more experimental data comes in
to confirm one of them.
But then its real failure is that it doesn't tell you exactly when
and
where and why it stops unitary evolution and produces a result.
That's a failure of particular interpretations of QM, e.g. the CI
that
postulate collapse.
The Born rule tells us the probability of a result...IF there is
one.
Decoherence tells there's an asymptotic approach to a result and
why...but not when and where it arrives.
Decoherence does does tell you how the different sectors split over
time.
Not if unitary evolution is exact and always. You have often argued
that the original superposition never really goes away. Strictly, that
means that the initial state is still intact, and nothing has in fact
happened.
Why would nothing have happened? The observer is internal to the system
and is in an entangled state with the measured system and the local
environment.
Decoherence has to work through to a conclusion if the
sectors are to split and a definite result is to emerge.
Definite results are not needed because the observers are internal to
the system, there is no outside observer external to the entire
universe.
This is where
unitary evolution breaks down. Taken literally it never leads to a
result. Just as in a quantum computer -- the internal unitary
evolution has to invoke decoherence and collapse in order for a result
to emerge.
Only from the point of view of an external observer. But there is
nothing external to the universe.
You need some marker of the point at which the different sectors
finally differentiate. The SE itself is clearly not the whole
story.......you need something like a minimum non-zero probability! Or
an acceptance that FAPP is good enough, along with an understanding of
when FAPP is good enough.
Or just accept that we also consist of partielces and are not external
to the universe.
Saibal
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQuT%3DzffD-fgKTvd6kJk7Pg5NxfXz_LE6BLqJ-Qd8_JzQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQuT%3DzffD-fgKTvd6kJk7Pg5NxfXz_LE6BLqJ-Qd8_JzQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1356908a0a3fdf5eff7d9ff9907776df%40zonnet.nl.
