Re: The physical limits of computation

['scerir' via Everything List]

"In some respects, information is a qualitatively different sort of entity from 
all others in
terms of which the physical sciences describe the world. It is not, for 
instance, a function
only of tensor fields on spacetime (as general relativity requires all physical 
quantities to
be), nor is it a quantum-mechanical observable.
But in other respects, information does resemble some entities that appear in 
laws of
physics: the theory of computation, and statistical mechanics, seem to refer 
directly to it
without regard to the specific media in which it is instantiated, just as 
conservation laws
do for the electromagnetic four-current or the energy-momentum tensor. We call 
that the
substrate-independence of information. Information can also be moved from one 
type of
medium to another while retaining all its properties qua information. We call 
this its
interoperability property; it is what makes human capabilities such as language 
and science
possible, as well as biological adaptations that use symbolic codes, such as 
the genetic
code.
Also, information is of the essence in preparation and measurement, both of 
which are
necessary for testing scientific theories. The output of a measurement is 
information; the
input of a preparation includes information, specifying an attribute with which 
a physical
system is to be prepared.
All these applications of information involve abstraction, in that one entity 
is represented
symbolically by another. But information is not abstract in the same sense as, 
say, the set
of all prime numbers, for it only exists when it is physically instantiated. So 
the laws
governing it, like those governing computation – but unlike those governing 
prime
numbers – are laws of physics. In this paper we conjecture what these laws are.
Also, despite being physical, information has a counter-factual character: an 
object in a
particular physical state cannot be said to carry information unless it could 
have been in a
different state. As Weaver (1949) put it, this word ‘information’ in 
communication theory relates not so much to what you *do* say, as to what you 
*could* say…." D.Deutsch, Constructor Theory, Arxiv

> Il 21/01/2024 01:28 +01 Brent Meeker  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> The problem with this is that information, like complexity, has no physically 
> definite operational meaning.  You can't go into the lab and ask what's the 
> information content of "this".
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 1/19/2024 10:46 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Interesting quote about all that (and information)
> > 
> > Frank Wilczek: "Information is another dimensionless quantity that plays a 
> > large and increasing role in our description of the world. Many of the 
> > terms that arise naturally in discussions of information have a distinctly 
> > physical character. For example we commonly speak of density of information 
> > and flow of information. Going deeper, we find far-reaching analogies 
> > between information and (negative) entropy, as noted already in Shannon's 
> > original work. Nowadays many discussions of the microphysical origin of 
> > entropy, and of foundations of statistical mechanics in general, start from 
> > discussions of information and ignorance. I think it is fair to say that 
> > there has been a unification fusing the physical quantity (negative) 
> > entropy and the conceptual quantity information. A strong formal connection 
> > between entropy and action arises through the Euclidean, imaginary-time 
> > path integral formulation of partition functions. Indeed, in that framework 
> > the expectation value of the Euclideanized action essentially is the 
> > entropy. The identification of entropy with Euclideanized action has been 
> > used, among other things, to motivate an algebraically simple (but deeply 
> > mysterious "derivation" of black hole entropy. If one could motivate the 
> > imaginary-time path integral directly and insightfully, rather than 
> > indirectly through the apparatus of energy eigenvalues, Boltzmann factors, 
> > and so forth, then one would have progressed toward this general prediction 
> > of unification: Fundamental action principles, and thus the laws of 
> > physics, will be re-interpreted as statements about information and its 
> > transformations." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735v1.pdf 
> > https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1503.07735v1.pdf=6AQGH8JQz
> >  
> > 
> > > Il 20/01/2024 01:10 +01 Jason Resch  
> > > mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > I put together a short write up on the relationship between physics, 
> > > information, and computation, drawing heavily fro

Re: The physical limits of computation

['scerir' via Everything List]

Interesting quote about all that (and information)

Frank Wilczek: "Information is another dimensionless quantity that plays a 
large and increasing role in our description of the world. Many of the terms 
that arise naturally in discussions of information have a distinctly physical 
character. For example we commonly speak of density of information and flow of 
information. Going deeper, we find far-reaching analogies between information 
and (negative) entropy, as noted already in Shannon's original work. Nowadays 
many discussions of the microphysical origin of entropy, and of foundations of 
statistical mechanics in general, start from discussions of information and 
ignorance. I think it is fair to say that there has been a unification fusing 
the physical quantity (negative) entropy and the conceptual quantity 
information. A strong formal connection between entropy and action arises 
through the Euclidean, imaginary-time path integral formulation of partition 
functions. Indeed, in that framework the expectation value of the Euclideanized 
action essentially is the entropy. The identification of entropy with 
Euclideanized action has been used, among other things, to motivate an 
algebraically simple (but deeply mysterious "derivation" of black hole entropy. 
If one could motivate the imaginary-time path integral directly and 
insightfully, rather than indirectly through the apparatus of energy 
eigenvalues, Boltzmann factors, and so forth, then one would have progressed 
toward this general prediction of unification: Fundamental action principles, 
and thus the laws of physics, will be re-interpreted as statements about 
information and its transformations." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735v1.pdf 
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1503.07735v1.pdf=6AQGH8JQz
 

> Il 20/01/2024 01:10 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> I put together a short write up on the relationship between physics, 
> information, and computation, drawing heavily from the work of Seth Lloyd and 
> others:
>  
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/124q3ni51E3sf9kMC_sNKgP3ikcl8ou1t/view?usp=sharing
>  
> I thought it might be interesting to members of this list who often debate 
> whether our reality is fundamentally computational/informational.
>  
> Jason 
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgRo-xNors%2BWZbDVpboT3QwiHC_NS24_uQ9_QkiTd3fyQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgRo-xNors%2BWZbDVpboT3QwiHC_NS24_uQ9_QkiTd3fyQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/1890352135.1654730.1705733200088%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Mermin and Hartle wrote about "Now"

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/3/8/1017354/Commentary-What-I-think-about-Now?
 
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/9/8/414845/Classical-and-quantum-framing-of-the-Now?
 
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403001
 
 

-- 
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/41024.4764744.1701419464706%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Just two links

Tel-Aviv conference on MWI (2022), many videos

https://www.mwi2022tau.com/   https://www.mwi2022tau.com/


On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds interpretation

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467

 

-- 
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/348418583.1275931.1701353617852%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

[Bruce] Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct 
from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will 
see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you only 
see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its claim is that many 
worlds all exist with probability one.

 

Principle of least information? Omniverse -> Multiverse -> Universe?

"Jaynes' followers propose a profound connection between action and 
information, such that the principle of least action and the laws of 
thermodynamics both derive from basic symmetries of logic itself. We need only 
accept that all conceivable universes are equally likely, a principle of least 
information. Under this assumption, we can imagine a smooth spectrum from 
metaphysics to physics, from the omniverse to the multiverse to the universe, 
where the fundamental axis is information, and the only fundamental law is that 
you can never assume more than you know." -- David Dalrymple

 

 

-- 
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/1771043491.3511581.1701268032292%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett 
and his "universal wave-function" 
https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf

s.

__

See also Zeh here  https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3348

s.

i

 

 

 

-- 
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/1464856268.1091525.1701018343689%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

This started with my point that we test, observer, infer, write papers, attend 
conferences, discuss and write down theories, all in a classical world.  
Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which is seeing a 
result, not a superposition of results.  This is the basis of the Copenhagen 
interpretation.  Do you disagree with any of that?

Brent


It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett 
and his "universal wave-function"

https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf

s.

iyu
 
 

--
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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/1668238914.1082895.1701009106252%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

[John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum 
Eraser Experiment works.

[Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical.
 
[John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum Eraser 
Experiment works that only uses classical concepts is in print then they 
must've used invisible ink to print it because I've never seen it and I don't 
know anybody who has. And I've looked! 
 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03137 Ruth Kastner wrote an interesting paper about 
Quantum Erasure and Delayed Choice

 

-- 
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/2063434390.902526.1700821592628%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

According to Schroedinger (1935) the psi-function is a catalogue of 
expectations.

Continuing with the exposition of the official teaching, let us turn to the 
psi-function
mentioned above (§ 5). It is now the instrument for predicting the probability 
of
measurement outcomes. It embodies the totality of theoretical future 
expectations, as laid down in a catalogue. It is, at any moment in time, the 
bridge of relations and restrictions between different measurements, as were in 
the classical theory the model and its state at any given time. The 
psi-function has also otherwise much in common with this classical state. In 
principle, it is also uniquely determined by a finite number of suitably chosen 
measurements on the object, though half as many as in the classical theory. 
Thus is the catalogue of expectations laid down initially. From then on, it 
changes with time, as in the classical theory, in a well-defined and 
deterministic ("causal") way - the development of the psi-function is governed 
by a partial differential equation (of first order in the time variable, and 
resolved for dy/dt). This corresponds to the undisturbed motion of the model in 
the classical theory. But that lasts only so long until another measurement is 
undertaken. After every measurement, one has to attribute to the psi-function a 
curious, somewhat sudden adaptation, which depends on the measurement result 
and is therefore unpredictable. This alone already shows that this second type 
of change of the psi-function has nothing to do with the regular development 
between two measurements. The sudden
change due to measurement is closely connected with the discussion in § 5, and 
we will
consider it in depth in the following. It is the most interesting aspect of the 
whole theory,
and it is precisely this aspect that requires a breach with naive realism. For 
this reason,
the y-function cannot immediately replace the model or the real thing. And this 
is not
because a real thing or a model could not in principle undergo sudden 
unpredictable
changes, but because from a realistic point of view, measurements are natural 
phenomena like any other, and should not by themselves cause a sudden 
interruption of the regular evolution in Nature.
 

> Il 21/11/2023 18:12 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 11:17 AM 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Just an interesting quote.
> > 
> > “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* 
> > really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], 
> > just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form 
> > for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings 
> > rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, 
> > all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. 
> > It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that 
> > unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave 
> > equation. The aforesaid *alternatives* come into play only when we make an 
> > observation - which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still 
> > it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented 
> > from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. [] 
> > The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated 
> > directly by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed 
> > to indicate the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that 
> > what we really observe are particles - that actual events always concern 
> > particles, not waves."
> >  
> > -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin 
> > Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, 
> > Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
> > 
>  
> This is how David Deutsch interpreted these lectures:
>  
> "Schrödinger also had the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before 
> Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin, in 
> which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't that a 
> strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared being 
> considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won the 
> Nobel Prize for, might be true." -- David Deutsch
>  
>  
> Jason 
>  
> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > > Il 21/11/2023 16:43 +01 Jason Resch  > > mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> &g

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Just an interesting quote.

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really 
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], just 
*impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid 
*alternatives* come into play only when we make an observation - which need, of 
course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to 
the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it. [] The compulsion to replace the 
"simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by 
*alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective 
*probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really observe are 
particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves."
 
-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
 
 
 

> Il 21/11/2023 16:43 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  > mailto:laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > > > Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that 
> > > > Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional 
> > > > elements of reality beyond the quantum description
> > > 
> >  
> > Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics must be 
> > incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned 
> > out nature could be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that being 
> > ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.  
> > 
>  
> EPR was ultimately right. QM, as the understood was incomplete, for it wasn't 
> acknowledged that there as an infinity of simultaneously existing states all 
> of which persisted after measurement. It was assuming that measurement 
> somehow changed things and made states disappear and do so faster than light 
> which EPR authors couldn't swallow. Their intuition proved correct, there are 
> no FTL influences.
>  
> Jason 
>  
>  
> 
> >  
> >  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> > https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
> > brw
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --
> > 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 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/1533872897.23972.1700583456959%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

['scerir' via Everything List]

According to John Bell, if A is one of the two wings of a typical Bell 
apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, and 
if B is the other of the two wings, j is the observable to be measured in B and 
y its possible value, and if Lambda is the hidden-variable joint state 
description of the composite (entangled) quantum system, we can write the 
following
 
Bell factorisability condition
 
p_A,B,Lambda (x,y|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i) p_B,Lambda (y|j)
 
which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for 
measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal to the 
product of the the separate probabilities.
 
We know that so many experiments have shown the expression above is far from 
reality. In other words it is well known that this factorisability condition is 
violated by quantum mechanics (QM).
 
Following Jarrett (and also Shimony, Howard, Cushing, Suppes, van Fraassen, and 
others) the Bell factorisability condition is equivalent to two independent 
conditions,
 
Locality Condition
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j) = p_B,Lambda (y|j)
 
Separability Condition
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)
 
where Locality is defined as: Given two systems A and B, space-like separated, 
the state of A cannot be influenced by events (measurements) on B, and 
viceversa.
 
where Separability is defined as: Two systems, separated by some 
spatio-temporal interval, possess their own separate states, regardless of 
their previous history, and the joint state is completely determined by their 
own separate states.
 
Eberhard, Page, Shimony, Ghirardi (et al.) have shown that QM only implies the 
violation of the Separability condition (the world is non-separable, there is 
wholeness, there is some tao in physics) .
 
In other words it is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, 
Howard, Cushing, Eberhard, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that QM 
violates the Separability condition but does not violate the Locality condition.
 
In physical terms the above means that QM does not allow faster than light 
(FTL) signaling (Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento, 46B, 1978, 392; Ghirardi et al., 
Found. Phys., 23, 1993, 341).
 
It is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard, Eberhard, 
Cushing, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that a “deterministic” theory 
(i.e. one in which the range of any probability distribution of outcomes is the 
set: 0 or 1) reproducing all the predictions of QM, does not violate the 
Separability Condition, but must violate the Locality Condition.
 
In fact the Separability Condition means that ...
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)
 
so, if the specification of Lambda, i, j, in principle determines completely 
the outcomes x, y, then any additional conditioning on x or y is superfluous, 
having x and y just one value allowed, so they cannot affect the probability, 
which (in a deterministic theory) can take just the values 0 or 1.
 
Thus a *deterministic* QM can not violate the Separability Condition and must 
violate the Locality Condition, which means ... faster than light (FTL) 
signaling.
 

-- 
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/90209207.4416216.1693905304189%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

['scerir' via Everything List]

 

> Il 04/09/2023 12:29 +01 Bruce Kellett  ha scritto:
>  
> No. The example was not particularly well thought out. My point is that 
> geometrical motions can exceed light velocity, and distant galaxies recede at 
> greater than light speed. Light speed limits only physical transmission, 
> unless by tachyons. In fine, understanding non-locality probably involves 
> refining our understanding of space and time.
> 

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26790

Anton Zeilinger. “It appears that an understanding is possible via the notion 
of information. Information seen as the possibility of obtaining knowledge. 
Then quantum entanglement describes a situation where information exists about 
possible correlations between possible future results of possible future 
measurements without any information existing for the individual measurements. 
The latter explains quantum randomness, the first quantum entanglement. And 
both have significant consequences for our customary notions of causality. It 
remains to be seen what the consequences are for our notions of space and time, 
or space-time for that matter. Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond such 
considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-time, a 
conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the Viennese 
physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s absolute space and 
absolute time form their throne. The hope is that in the end we will have new 
physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity.”
 

-- 
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/243069131.8543635.1693828098555%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

['scerir' via Everything List]

local, non-local, separable, non-separable, causes, correlations, influences, 
physical speed limit, speed of quantum influences, space-time, out of 
space-time, many worlds, many physical worlds, what a mess


Testing spooky action at a distance


D. Salart 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Salart%2C+D, A. Baas 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Baas%2C+A, C. 
Branciard 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Branciard%2C+C, N. 
Gisin https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Gisin%2C+N, H. 
Zbinden https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Zbinden%2C+H

> In science, one observes correlations and invents theoretical models that 
> describe them. In all sciences, besides quantum physics, all correlations are 
> described by either of two mechanisms. Either a first event influences a 
> second one by sending some information encoded in bosons or molecules or 
> other physical carriers, depending on the particular science. Or the 
> correlated events have some common causes in their common past. 
> Interestingly, quantum physics predicts an entirely different kind of cause 
> for some correlations, named entanglement. This new kind of cause reveals 
> itself, e.g., in correlations that violate Bell inequalities (hence cannot be 
> described by common causes) between space-like separated events (hence cannot 
> be described by classical communication). Einstein branded it as spooky 
> action at a distance. A real spooky action at a distance would require a 
> faster than light influence defined in some hypothetical universally 
> privileged reference frame. Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the 
> speed of all such hypothetical influences. We performed a Bell test during 
> more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately 
> east-west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We 
> continuously observed 2-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality 
> threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation, the configuration of our 
> experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, 
> a lower bound for the speed of this spooky influence. For instance, if such a 
> privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth's speed in this 
> frame is less than 10^-3 that of the speed of light, then the speed of this 
> spooky influence would have to exceed that of light by at least 4 orders of 
> magnitude.
> 
Comments:   Preliminary version of Nature 454, 861-864 (14 August 2008). 5 
pages and 5 figures
Subjects:   Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:arXiv:0808.3316 https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:0808.3316v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316v1 [quant-ph] for 
this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0808.3316
Journal reference:  Nature 454, 861-864 (14 August 2008)
Related DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07121


 

-- 
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/1481523919.8569752.1693818953318%40mail1.libero.it.

Re[2]: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[scerir via Everything List]

A deterministic clockwork universe vs a lawless universe (see Svozil, 
Arxiv,2000). I think QM is in between.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Lunedì, 18 Aprile 2022, 02:35PM +02:00 da 
Alan Grayson  agrayson2...@gmail.com :

>
>
>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson
>>  wrote:
>>>I was aware of the limitation on  precision  implied by the
>>>  HUP. I was addressing whether  simultaneous measurements
>>>  are possible despite the HUP. I think they are possible. 
>>The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations. 
>>Each destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate
>>variables to arbitrary precision.  But repeating the destructive
>>measurements on exactly the same prepared system will then give a
>>scatter of answers which satisfies the HUP.
>>
>>
>>>But
>>>  my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible.
>>>  IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly
>>>  predict the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>
>>Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is
>>the huge difference?
>>
>>Brent
>
> So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>>
>>>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at
>>>  6:19:44 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle limits the accuracy of determining initial
conditions even if the physics of evolution is perfectly
deterministic.

I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a
courtesy.  If you don't want it addressed...why post it.

Brent


On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>No. I didn't read your original
>  post on this thread. But I see the authors assume quantum
>  fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get what
>  you pay for. In my example, there surely are  caused 
> probabilities, even if we don't have complete
>  understanding of the initial conditions. But why address
>  my issue if a link satisfies you? AG
>
>On Sunday, April 17,
>  2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>A simple example of your
>>>  point is a gas at some temperature and pressure,
>>>  confined in some volume. For a given particle in
>>>  the ensemble, we can't determine its exact path
>>>  because we lack information about its
>>>  interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we
>>>  could determine its exact path, and any
>>>  uncertainties in that information would translate
>>>  into uncertainties in its path. But inherent
>>>  randomness in QM is different and probably has
>>>  nothing to do with the UP. 
>>Did you read the paper I cited?:   https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>
>>Brent
>>
>>>For example, for a small
>>>  uncertainty in position, there is a large
>>>  uncertainty in velocity, so we  can get
>>>  simultaneous measurements of position and
>>>  velocity, but the latter will manifest large
>>>  fluctuations for succeeding measurements. Thus,
>>>  the "inherent randomness" in QM is the assumption
>>>  that every individual trial or outcome of a
>>>  measurement is UNcaused; that is, the particular
>>>  outcome can't be traced to some prior state --
>>>  what AE called God playing dice with the universe.
>>>  AG
>>> 
>>>On Saturday,
>>>  April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6  
>>> meeke...@gmail.com wrote:; 
Consider the converse.  When you
comprehend some physical evolution, is it
essential that it be deterministic.  Every
event has many causes, do you have to know
every one of them to comprehend it?  Think
of all the things you would have to say did
NOT happen in order that your comprehension
be complete.  The way I look at it, we call
classical mechanics deterministic only
because  most of 

Re: Hossenfelder on superdeterminism

['scerir' via Everything List]

In (7) (Brans, 1988) the density for hidden variables depends not only on the 
state of the particle pair but also on the detector settings a and b. (I'm not 
a fan of superdeterminism. Somedody pointed out that concepts like 
falsifiability, isolated system, repetition of an experiment, random 
measurement error, are impossible. So, the original motivation for 
superdeterminism -
saving locality, I guess - is not present in the picture of the world we get 
from
it.)

> Il 19/12/2021 11:09 Bruce Kellett  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 'Vague statements that the result obtained depends on the
> > measurement made are either trivial or else meaningless without a
> > developed quantum formalism that incorporates the requires hidden 
> > variables.'
> > -Bruce
> > 
> > Indeed. But somebody wrote something, in 1988.
> > https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1007/bf00670750
> > 
> > > 
> So where is the 'developed quantum formalism that incorporates the 
> required hidden variables'?
> 
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQjo3%2BbpGdLvXLr%3Dg3P_e7LXGSRWHSCw26NtRoR-b9s9Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQjo3%2BbpGdLvXLr%3Dg3P_e7LXGSRWHSCw26NtRoR-b9s9Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/1026204781.116644.1639913155836%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Hossenfelder on superdeterminism

['scerir' via Everything List]

'Vague statements that the result obtained depends on the 
measurement made are either trivial or else meaningless without a 
developed quantum formalism that incorporates the requires hidden variables.'
-Bruce

Indeed. But somebody wrote something, in 1988. 
https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1007/bf00670750

-- 
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/506544891.115007.1639904364721%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: more books on quantum foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > [scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a 
> > language, nothing more  than a language. Efficient?
> > 
> > > [Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that 
> > language refers too, and what or who does the conversation (in that 
> > language). 
> 

I would mean: A general, natural "syntax" (or "operating system" maybe?). What 
does that "syntax" refers to? Good question.

Well, I think that "something" for sure exists. Something knowable. I'm a 
realist. Everett III was a realist. At least, his interpretation was realist. 
Schroedinger thought his waves were real.

So, I think that the supposed "syntax" could refer to real things, let us say 
"states" or Ur-objects or physical informations or knowable relations, or 
something else.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00676265

But are those "states" real? David Finkelstein wrote: "In quantum theory we 
represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical 
reality on which they act." Right. But isn't that - precisely - a "syntax"? And 
can Finkelstein exclude the very existence of that "hypothetical reality" on 
which operators act?

-- 
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/1132548789.189923.1615396769469%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: more books on quantum foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/#BookPhilQM

> Il 09/03/2021 16:58 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s. But - 
> since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more  
> than a language. Efficient?
> 
> > > Il 09/03/2021 14:50 Bruno Marchal  ha 
> scritto:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     > > > On 15 Feb 2021, at 07:29, 'scerir' via 
> > Everything List  > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I hope these links work
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1
> > >  
> > > https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C5M%C5%17D%D5%D1=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > I thought it was the book by Bernard d’Espagnat, with the same 
> > title. Barrett is usually rather good, but I would recommend the older book 
> > by d’Espagnat which is very good.
> > The book by David Albert, (“Quantum Mechanics and Experience, 
> > Harvard”) despite being wrong on Everett is a very good introduction too, 
> > especially for non-mathematicians.
> > 
> > Bruno
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Reality-Meaning-Mechanics-Theories-ebook/dp/B0851R2FY7/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613369882=8-4
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.amazon.it/Foundations-Quantum-Theory-Classical-Concepts/dp/3319847384/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=klaas+landsman=1613370027=8-1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Cookbook-Mathematical-Foundations-Mechanics/dp/0198827865/ref=sr_1_15?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613370234=8-15
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.amazon.it/dp/3030400670/?coliid=I3FFGMO91H2EV4=Y8V6GY7TI2R8=1_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it_im
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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 
> > > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it
> > >  
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email_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 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email_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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/223933153.248576.1615305528353%40mail1.libero.it
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/223933153.248576.1615305528353%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email_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/243324400.249522.1615306477579%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: more books on quantum foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s. But - since 
then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more  than a 
language. Efficient?

> Il 09/03/2021 14:50 Bruno Marchal  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > On 15 Feb 2021, at 07:29, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I hope these links work
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1
> >  
> > https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C5M%C5%17D%D5%D1=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1
> > 
> > > 
> I thought it was the book by Bernard d’Espagnat, with the same title. 
> Barrett is usually rather good, but I would recommend the older book by 
> d’Espagnat which is very good.
> The book by David Albert, (“Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Harvard”) 
> despite being wrong on Everett is a very good introduction too, especially 
> for non-mathematicians.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Reality-Meaning-Mechanics-Theories-ebook/dp/B0851R2FY7/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613369882=8-4
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.amazon.it/Foundations-Quantum-Theory-Classical-Concepts/dp/3319847384/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=klaas+landsman=1613370027=8-1
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Cookbook-Mathematical-Foundations-Mechanics/dp/0198827865/ref=sr_1_15?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613370234=8-15
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.amazon.it/dp/3030400670/?coliid=I3FFGMO91H2EV4=Y8V6GY7TI2R8=1_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it_im
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email_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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email_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/223933153.248576.1615305528353%40mail1.libero.it.

Everett in the Heisenberg picture

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02328

-- 
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/2064270383.252051.1613719678779%40mail1.libero.it.

papers on probabilities & MWI

['scerir' via Everything List]

just few links!

https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/6889/

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15798/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135521980700024X

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/docs/Hemmo%20Pitowsky%20Quantum%20probability.pdf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8558/

https://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/lvhp/m117.pdf

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/295730424.pdf

https://philpapers.org/rec/HEWAIT

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03025703/document

-- 
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/2046491114.212060.1613593582370%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: new book on foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

AG, no unfortunately I did not read it. But I read, long time ago, that 
Heisenberg (and Dirac, and many more) was well aware of the main problem. That 
is to say the (physical meaning of) superposition and the (physical meaning of) 
projection postulate. So it is ... a long story! -serafino  

> Il 15/02/2021 06:09 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> It's a new book and download-able. If you've read it, has she broken any 
> new ground? AG
> 
> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 10:34:56 AM UTC-7 sce...@libero.it wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/foundations-of-quantum-mechanics/7D2F34BA2F54B51FBB33D557B2058D8E
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c91c2ac-4b89-4cb0-b55d-a5475bd1a17dn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c91c2ac-4b89-4cb0-b55d-a5475bd1a17dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/1088506514.88054.1613372690247%40mail1.libero.it.

more books on quantum foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

I hope these links work

https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1

https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Reality-Meaning-Mechanics-Theories-ebook/dp/B0851R2FY7/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613369882=8-4

https://www.amazon.it/Foundations-Quantum-Theory-Classical-Concepts/dp/3319847384/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=klaas+landsman=1613370027=8-1

https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Cookbook-Mathematical-Foundations-Mechanics/dp/0198827865/ref=sr_1_15?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613370234=8-15

https://www.amazon.it/dp/3030400670/?coliid=I3FFGMO91H2EV4=Y8V6GY7TI2R8=1_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it_im

-- 
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/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it.

new book on foundations

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/foundations-of-quantum-mechanics/7D2F34BA2F54B51FBB33D557B2058D8E

-- 
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/841371129.82305.1613324094267%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

That's behind a paywall.  Can you post a copy?
Brent

I hope it works

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf






-- 
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/125896415.1107545.1610868037954%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the *superposition* psi = 
sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] .

If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through 
a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will
*always* emerge 'up'. Why? It is a superposition, why not MWI?


> Il 16/01/2021 13:25 Pierz Newton-John  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of 
> > MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to 
> > demonstrate how that leads to internal inconsistency."
> > 
> > They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
> > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476
> > 
> > > 
> Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI, 
> unlike AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the system M 
> decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures the spin? If so, 
> then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the same world as one 
> another and there is only one possible measurement M’ can make. The outcome 
> is not subject to probability. If on the other hand, the system M has not 
> decohered with the common environment of M’, then M remains in a 
> superposition of up and down measurement states until measured by M’ and it 
> does not make sense to say that either the electron or M itself are in a 
> definite state with respect to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has not 
> yet split on the outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in 
> > the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email_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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/610945189.1243543.1610804823781%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

"They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476;

the paper (pdf) is here: 

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf

-- 
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/40617161.1239174.1610789854478%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you have 
to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate how that 
leads to internal inconsistency."

They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476

-- 
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/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

IMO the main quantum postulate is the following. 'Real experiments have 
results. Unperformed experiments have none.' (But we can create different 
postulates, and different theories. Only future experiments will tell ...)

> Il 14/01/2021 04:42 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
> 
> > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM 
> > UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 
> > > 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 
> > > > 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM 
> > > > > > UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > >   On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >   On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MWI 
> > > > > > > > doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for 
> > > > > > > > subsequent horse races say, are occurring in the SAME OTHER 
> > > > > > > > worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those OTHER 
> > > > > > > > worlds.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by 
> > > > > > > > "SAME OTHER worlds", the same as what? In one world Alan 
> > > > > > > > Grayson remembers having seen the electron go left, in another 
> > > > > > > > world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go right, 
> > > > > > > > other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, so 
> > > > > > > > which one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You 
> > > > > > > > seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI guarantee 
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Quantum mechanics is not in the 
> > > > > > > > guarantee business, it deals with probability.  
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't 
> > > > > > > > think you understand my point, which isn't complicated.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yes, your point is very simple 
> > > > > > > > indeed, but the word simple can have 2 meanings, one of them is 
> > > > > > > > complementary and the other not so much.  
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In first trial, the MWI postulates 
> > > > > > > other worlds comes into existence. Same other worlds in second 
> > > > > > > trial? Same other worlds in third trial, etc? Where does the MWI 
> > > > > > > assert these other worlds are the SAME other worlds? Unless it 
> > > > > > > does, you only have ONE measurement in each of these worlds. No 
> > > > > > > probability exists in these other worlds since no ensemble of 
> > > > > > > measurements exist in these other world. AG
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no 
> > > > > > "same other" worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are 
> > > > > > different in precisely one way and one way only: the eigenvalue 
> > > > > > recorded for the experiment. The different eigenvalues will then 
> > > > > > give rise to a "wave of differentiations" as the consequences of 
> > > > > > that singular difference ramifies, causing the different worlds 
> > > > > > generated by the original experimental difference to multiply. 
> > > > > > "World" really means a unique configuration of the universal wave 
> > > > > > function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the 
> > > > > > "same world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > This is what I have been saying all along! AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > No it isn't. I agree you have 
> > > > > been saying there is only one measurement outcome in 

Re[2]: Born's rule from almost nothing

[scerir via Everything List]

Worlds, worlds. What are these worlds? When a pig observes a Young 
interferometer does this pig create worlds? Does this pig split worlds? Or not, 
because there is not full consciousness? And in Alpha Centauri,  where there 
are no pigs, no humans, no consciousness, no Young interferometers? No Franson 
interferometers either ...
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Mercoledì, 06 Gennaio 2021, 01:28PM +01:00 
da Quentin Anciaux  allco...@gmail.com :

>Here a schema:
>
>
>After 3 experiments, you have *8* worlds... each with the memory of the 
>initial experiment, 4 of the 2nd version A and for of the 2nd version B... etc
>
>Every *worlds* has a past which is linked directly with the previous 
>experiment and to the initial experiment... in each world there is an ensemble 
>of 3 results.
>
>Quentin
>Le mer. 6 janv. 2021 à 13:01, Alan Grayson < agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>I should have been more explicit; since the trials are independent, the other 
>>worlds implied by the MWI for any particular trial, are unrelated to the 
>>other worlds created for any OTHER particular trial. Thus, each other world 
>>has an ensemble with one element, insufficient for the existence of 
>>probabilities. AG
>>
>>On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 4:41:57 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 3:33:52 AM UTC-7  johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM Alan Grayson < agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>>One world contains an Alan Grayson that sees the electron go left, 
>>another world is absolutely identical in every way except that it 
>>contains a  Alan Grayson that sees the electron go right. So you tell me, 
>>which of those 2 worlds is "THIS WORLD"?
>
> 
>It's the world where a living being can observe the trials being measured. 
>The other world is in your imagination (if you believe in the MWI). AG 

From that response I take it you have abandoned your attempt to poke  
logical  holes in the  Many Worlds Interpretation and instead have resorted 
to a pure emotional appeal; namely that there must be a fundamental law of 
physics that says anything  Alan Grayson finds to be odd cannot exist, and  
Alan Grayson finds many Worlds to be odd. Personally I find  Many Worlds to 
be odd too, although it's the least odd of all the quantum interpretations, 
however I don't think nature cares very much if you or I approve of it or 
not. From experimentation it's clear to me that if Many Worlds is not true 
then something even stranger is. 
>>>
>>>I have no idea whatsoever, how you reached your conclusions above. There are 
>>>things called laboratories, where physicists conduct experiments, some of 
>>>which are quantum experiments with probabilistic outcomes. The world in 
>>>which such things exist, I call THIS world. Worlds postulated to exist based 
>>>on the claim that any possible measurement, must be a realized measurement 
>>>in another world, I call OTHER worlds. Those OTHER worlds are imagined to 
>>>exist based on the MWI. These are simple facts. I am not making any 
>>>emotional appeals to anything. The possible oddness of the Cosmos is not 
>>>affirmed or denied here. I agree the Cosmos might be odd, possibly very odd, 
>>>but this has nothing to do with our discussion. The core of my argument is 
>>>that since the trial outcomes in quantum experiments are independent of one 
>>>another, there's no reason to claim that each of the OTHER worlds 
>>>accumulates ensembles, as an ensemble is created in THIS world. Without 
>>>ensembles in those OTHER worlds, the MWI fails to affirm the existence of 
>>>probability in any of those OTHER worlds. AG 

  See my new list at    Extropolis

John K Clark


>>-- 
>>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/55a83617-d49c-403c-a679-02025441ef6fn%40googlegroups.com
>> .
>
>
>-- 
>All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
>Hauer)
>-- 
>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/CAMW2kArbTypwa%3D2df%3D3u8VzSZHEPScF-dYLf8%3DQLtVdBR%2B1q_g%40mail.gmail.com
> .

-- 
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 

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

Bruno writes: "It is a theorem. No universal machine can determine which 
computations run it, .. "

Do we need a 'constructor theory'? That is to say a set of 'principles' under 
which we could show whether or not a 'universal constructor' can exist?

https://www.edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory
https://www.edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439

https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439

-- 
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/1274978825.510110.1608997167952%40mail1.libero.it.

David Deutsch paper

['scerir' via Everything List]

Interesting paper by David Deutsch, on MWI.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048

Already known maybe, but I was not aware of ...

-- 
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/1539229906.505981.1608972283416%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 25/12/2020 07:29 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Now I raise a similar question I posed to Bruce, thrice, with no replies. 
> Why does the unpredictability of measured values and the intrinsic randomness 
> protect relativity theory? This is really a huge conceptual leap. How would 
> you argue for that conclusion, as distinguished from asserting it? TIA, AG
> 


there is some literature, under the name of 'uncontrollable signaling' (Abner 
Shimony)

https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0177

https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2178

https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3714

https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0351

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.15059

-- 
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/346816733.588828.1608882895197%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

BTW at last I've found that quotation.

It seems nteresting that Schroedinger writes: 'Not only has none of us ever 
experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of 
circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world.' 

Unfortunately I cannot understand the following statement: 'I should say: the 
over-all number of minds is just one.'

"The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within 
our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it 
is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore 
cannot be contained in it as a part of it. But, of course, here we knock 
against the arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great multitude of 
these conscious egos, the world is however only one.
There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or 
consciousnesses, Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only 
one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.
The doctrine of identity can claim that it is clinched by the empirical fact 
that consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. 
Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there 
is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in 
the world.
Mind is by its very nature a singulare tantum. I should say: the over-all 
number of minds is just one. I venture to call it indesctructible since it has 
a peculiar time-table, namely mind is always now. There is really no before and 
after for mind. There is only now that includes memories and expectations. But 
I grant that our language is not adequate to express this, and I also grant, 
should anyone wish to state it, that I am now talking religion, not science – a 
religion, however not opposed to science, but supported by what disinterested 
scientific research has brought to the fore."

Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter

Chapter 4: The Arithmetical Paradox: The Oneness of Mind



> Il 22/12/2020 21:14 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> All the copies could be conscious or all could be zombies; none are 
> privileged.
> 
> "In truth there is only one mind. Oneness it is the doctrine of the 
> Upanishads." As far as I remember Schroedinger wrote something like that. 
> Does that "Oneness" could resolve our problem? :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1862682578.460029.1608668067995%40mail1.libero.it
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1862682578.460029.1608668067995%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email_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/740433897.491833.1608846077491%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

AG asked: does randomness imply no-FTL-signaling?

Let me ask: does determinism imply FTL-signaling?

A is one of the two wings of a Bell apparatus
i is the observable to be measured in A
x is the possible value of i
B is the other wing of a Bell apparatus
j is the observable to be measured in B
y is  the possible value of j
Lambda are hidden variables
p are probabilities

If we write
p_[A,Lambda] (x|i,j) = p_[A,Lambda] (x|i)
p_[B,Lambda] (y|i,j) = p_[B,Lambda] (y|j)
the above is a sort of "locality" condition,
since the value x only depends on the observable i,
and the value y only depends on the observable j.

In a (hypothetical 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d=ALeKk02Cur06my_H17d_9fUXbVDqBH5ESQ:1608715874782=hypothetical=1=X=2ahUKEwiAy4rS5ePtAhXLO-wKHWX6DTYQkeECKAB6BAgEEDU
 ) deterministic theory (but reproducing QM)
the above "locality" condition is violated.

-- 
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/871899580.451822.1608716365874%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
All the copies could be conscious or all could be zombies; none are privileged.

"In truth there is only one mind. Oneness it is the doctrine of the 
Upanishads." As far as I remember Schroedinger wrote something like that. Does 
that "Oneness" could resolve our problem? :-)


-- 
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/1862682578.460029.1608668067995%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

> MWI is incompatible with the Born Rule

How do you figure that?  

It's easy enough. MWI from the Schrodinger equation says that every outcome 
happens, with probability one. The Born rule says that different outcomes have 
different probabilities. So MWI + Born gives two incompatible results for 
outcome probabilities. Hence Everett is incoherent -- incompatible with the 
Born rule.
Bruce

"The compulsion to replace the *simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly 
by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate 
the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really 
observe are particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves."
-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.

-- 
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/467402915.405542.1608591294071%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

Uncontrollable signaling. 
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/25643

> Il 20/12/2020 14:36 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote:
> 
> > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via 
> Everything List  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On 12/19/2020 10:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:48 AM 
> > > 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > As far as I know, it 
> > > > was Born who came up with the interpretation of the equations as 
> > > > expressing probabilities.  But there was (and maybe still is) 
> > > > controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there 
> > > > were hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance.  For 
> > > > most physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of 
> > > > the violation of Bell inequalities.  At that point the choice was 
> > > > irreducible randomness or nonlocal effects
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > That is not quite right. The choice is not between 
> > > > randomnesss and non-locality. Non-local hidden variables (Bohm) do 
> > > > reduce the apparent randomness to ignorance of the detailed quantum 
> > > > state, but at the price of non-locality. Bell's result implies that 
> > > > non-locality is unavoidable, and this has nothing to do with the 
> > > > presence or absence of intrinsic randomness.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > If there were not intrinsic randomness 
> > > > then the extra correlation of that violates Bell's inequality could be 
> > > > used to signal faster than light.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > True, but irrelevant to what I said. There is no theory that gives 
> > a local account of the Bell correlations. Intrinsic randomness guarantees 
> > no FTL signalling. This seems to rule out local deterministic theories.
> > 
> > > 
> Intrinsic randomness guarantees no FTL signaling. Wow! That's a 
> breathtaking claim. How is it justified? What is the argument? TIA, AG 
> 
> > > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > It is only deterministic theories 
> > > like MWI and Bohm that eliminate randomness, but MWI does not solve the 
> > > locality issue either. Besides, MWI is incompatible with the Born Rule; 
> > > and the Born rule, while consistent with Bohm, cannot be derived from 
> > > Bohmian mechanics.
> > > > 
> > > > Bruce
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > and most physicists 
> > > > saw randomness as the more likely, less disruptive choice.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e7ae6db3-dba1-414b-9190-6c7b5f00284fn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e7ae6db3-dba1-414b-9190-6c7b5f00284fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/811383274.368999.1608548750287%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

"Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to make the duality 
of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves comprehensible by 
interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as probability density 
for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at once be carried over to 
the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the probability density for 
electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert this, but how could it be 
proved?"--Max Born, Nobel lecture, 1954

> Il 19/12/2020 20:48 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it was Born who came up with the interpretation of the 
> equations as expressing probabilities.  But there was (and maybe still is) 
> controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there were 
> hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance.  For most 
> physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of the 
> violation of Bell inequalities.  At that point the choice was irreducible 
> randomness or nonlocal effects and most physicists saw randomness as the more 
> likely, less disruptive choice.
> 
>     Brent
> 
> On 12/19/2020 2:53 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > I think that Bohr might have said that we cannot know, because when 
> > we try to measure (or observe) something we perturb it, at the same time. 
> > We - according to Bohr - cannot follow the causal course of a quantum 
> > through space-time. The important concept (Bohr) is "what we can *say* 
> > about nature" and not "what nature *is*".
> > 
> > > > > Il 19/12/2020 11:18 Alan Grayson 
> >  mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-7 
> > > sce...@libero.it mailto:sce...@libero.it wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Randomness? What randomness?
> > > > 
> > > > Klaas Landsman 
> > > > https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Landsman%2C+K
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > This is a review of the issue of 
> > > > randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its 
> > > > ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal 
> > > > relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. 
> > > > Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in 
> > > > general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum 
> > > > mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton 
> > > > interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. 
> > > > I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are 
> > > > not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, 
> > > > their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in 
> > > > proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements 
> > > > (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted 
> > > > statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In appendices I 
> > > > discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated 
> > > > experiments, and review the notion of 1-randomness introduced by 
> > > > Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, and others.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > This might be helpful, but more likely over my head. What I 
> > > want to know is WHO originally came up with the interpretation of QM that 
> > > it is irreducibly random -- meaning that in principle there is no way to 
> > > predetermine outcomes of experiments -- and WHAT was the justification. I 
> > > think it was Bohr, and what was his reasoning for this interpretation, 
> > > which is the "end of the road" for any theory better than QM. AG 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> > > Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

I think that Bohr might have said that we cannot know, because when we try to 
measure (or observe) something we perturb it, at the same time. We - according 
to Bohr - cannot follow the causal course of a quantum through space-time. The 
important concept (Bohr) is "what we can *say* about nature" and not "what 
nature *is*".

> Il 19/12/2020 11:18 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-7 sce...@libero.it wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068
> > 
> > 
> > Randomness? What randomness?
> > 
> > Klaas Landsman 
> > https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Landsman%2C+K
> > 
> > > > > This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum 
> > mechanics, with special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness 
> > has different antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and 
> > compressibility. Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of 
> > randomness in general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of 
> > quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton 
> > interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I 
> > also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 
> > 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, their 
> > very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in proofs of 
> > randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the 
> > safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted statistically, like 
> > the second law of thermodynamics. In appendices I discuss the Born rule and 
> > its status in both single and repeated experiments, and review the notion 
> > of 1-randomness introduced by Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, 
> > and others.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> This might be helpful, but more likely over my head. What I want to know 
> is WHO originally came up with the interpretation of QM that it is 
> irreducibly random -- meaning that in principle there is no way to 
> predetermine outcomes of experiments -- and WHAT was the justification. I 
> think it was Bohr, and what was his reasoning for this interpretation, which 
> is the "end of the road" for any theory better than QM. AG 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/1778545083.336183.1608375209130%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068


Randomness? What randomness?

Klaas Landsman 
https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Landsman%2C+K

> This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with 
> special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different 
> antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. 
> Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in 
> general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics 
> (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton interpretation) are 
> strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of 
> outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these 
> occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that 
> the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of 
> quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) 
> should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. 
> In appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and 
> repeated experiments, and review the notion of 1-randomness introduced by 
> Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, and others.
> 

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ce2b4b2-398d-47ba-a26c-76aeacb7c79fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/519681555.332676.1608366613341%40mail1.libero.it.

paper by D'Ariano, no quantum paradoxes

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-020-00398-6?fbclid=IwAR1_T-xMzYavf_FyyMdIb4iPyKrpzdqh2s3xYDK4w3hi8lvUDzC4uXznlMY

-- 
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/1733273754.60157.1606319056223%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

BTW I've found that quote by Vaidman.

'In the framework of the MWI, the teleportation procedure does not move the 
quantum state: the state was, in some sense, in the remote location from the 
beginning. The correlated pair, which is the necessary item for teleportation, 
incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote particle, and, in 
particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local measurement of the 
teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the state of the remote particle differs form the state by some known 
transformation. The number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains 
why the information which has to be transmitted for teleportation of a quantum 
state—the information which world we need to split into, i.e., what 
transformation has to be applied—is much smaller than the information which is 
needed for the creation of such a state. For example, for the case of a 
spin-1/2 particle there are only 4 different worlds, so in order to teleport 
the state we have to transmit just 2 bits.' – Lev Vaidman in 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810089


> Il 06/09/2020 12:47 Bruce Kellett  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:55 PM 'scerir' via Everything List < 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds that 
> > just get distinguished by results has never been taken seriously by anyone 
> > outside of this list. It has never been worked through in detail, and it is 
> > doubtful if it even makes sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the 
> > Schrodinger equation."
> > 
> > Vaidman, speaking of quantum teleportation, 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation , pointed out that when 
> > Bob receives the message from Alice, he will know which of the four states 
> > his particle is in, and using this information he performs a unitary 
> > operation on his particle to transform it to the desired state. But (as 
> > Vaidman pointed out) before Bob receives the message from Alice there are 
> > four pre-existing equiprobable states, one of them (Bob doesn't know which 
> > one) is already the right one. 
> > 
> > > 
> Serafino,
>  I am sorry to have to say this, but Lev Vaidman is something of an idiot 
> about these things. Don't take anything he says seriously, even though he has 
> been around for many years. This quote is irrelevant to my point. MWI is 
> incompatible with the Born rule. The Born rule makes sense only in single 
> world settings.
> 
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTkPzTANfkGUhF1YZ74oRktqeyTwLX8dC8ktnOqPeYoqA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTkPzTANfkGUhF1YZ74oRktqeyTwLX8dC8ktnOqPeYoqA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/831208779.980662.1599411807728%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds that just get 
distinguished by results has never been taken seriously by anyone outside of 
this list. It has never been worked through in detail, and it is doubtful if it 
even makes sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the Schrodinger equation."

Vaidman, speaking of quantum teleportation, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation , pointed out that when Bob 
receives the message from Alice, he will know which of the four states his 
particle is in, and using this information he performs a unitary operation on 
his particle to transform it to the desired state. But (as Vaidman pointed out) 
before Bob receives the message from Alice there are four pre-existing 
equiprobable states, one of them (Bob doesn't know which one) is already the 
right one.  α | 0 ⟩ B + β | 1 ⟩ B {\displaystyle \alpha |0\rangle _{B}+\beta 
|1\rangle _{B}}

-- 
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/1992565917.420036.1599382552881%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

['scerir' via Everything List]

Il 6 giugno 2020 alle 14.13 Philip Thrift  ha scritto:


The best comment by a physicists (Associate Professor, Monash University) in 
the discussion thread:

The wavefunction is not a physical thing - so whether it collapses is 
irrelevant.

At least one physicist not  brainwashed into the current religion.
@hilipthrift

--

I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, 
as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations … 
Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion 
we do not refer to something real and objective? [It is not me, it is Max Born]



-- 
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/12276159.1980868.159141401%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

['scerir' via Everything List]

<>

“One may call these uncertainties [i.e. the Born probabilities] objective, in 
that they are simply a consequence of the fact that we describe the experiment 
in terms of classical physics; they do not depend in detail on the observer. 
One may call them subjective, in that they reflect our incomplete knowledge of 
the world.” (Heisenberg)


-- 
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/281572470.822711.1589809139118%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

['scerir' via Everything List]

I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that 
probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'.

> Bruce wrote:
> 
> It is this subjectivity, and appeal to Bayesianism, that I reject for QM. 
> I consider probabilities to be intrinsic properties -- not further 
> analysable. In other words, I favour a propensity interpretation. Relative 
> frequencies are the way we generally measure probabilities, but they do not 
> define them.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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/1520643804.753400.1589708343624%40mail1.libero.it.

Scientists “film” a quantum measurement (?)

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://www.su.se/english/research/research-news/scientists-film-a-quantum-measurement-1.487234

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.080401

-- 
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/1729041341.357498.1583410053234%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

['scerir' via Everything List]

Physics and the Totalitarian Principle

Helge Kragh https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Kragh%2C+H
(Submitted on 10 Jul 2019)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04623

> What is sometimes called the "totalitarian principle," a metaphysical 
> doctrine often associated with the famous physicist Murray Gell-Mann, states 
> that everything allowed by the laws of nature must actually exist. The 
> principle is closely related to the much older "principle of plenitude." 
> Although versions of the totalitarian principle are well known to physicists 
> and often appear in the physics literature, it has attracted little 
> reflection. Apart from a critical examination of the origin and history of 
> the totalitarian principle, the paper discusses this and the roughly similar 
> plenitude principle from a conceptual perspective. In addition it offers 
> historical analyses of a few case studies from modern physics in which 
> reasoning based on the totalitarian principle can be identified. The cases 
> include the prediction of the magnetic monopole, the hypothesis of 
> radioactive protons, and the discovery of the muon neutrino. Moreover, 
> attention is called to the new study of metamaterials.
> 

"Feynman later commented on his path integral approach to quantum mechanics as 
follows (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1966, p. 19-9):
Is it true that the particle doesn’t just “take the right path” but that it 
looks at all the other possible trajectories? … The miracle of it all is, of 
course, that it does just that. That’s what the laws of quantum mechanics say. 
[The principle of least action] isn’t that a particle takes the path of least 
action, but that it smells all the paths in the neighborhood and chooses the 
one that has the least action.

-- 
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/2063475301.1008777.1581341741888%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

['scerir' via Everything List]

It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved in each 
branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is observed. 
Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not conserved. This 
might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary evolution of the wave 
function as a whole... 
Bruce

The principle of conservation of energy, in MWI, seems obscure to me, at least.

"In more general cases, where there are superpositions of states of different 
energy, energy can increase in one universe at the cost of decreasing in 
another." -David Deutsch 
 
"Now, there isn't really a story to tell about what the total energy in 
individual universes is during that whole process [of measurement]. Because the 
universes are not autonomous during it. But one thing's for sure, there is no 
way of construing it so that the energy in each particular universe is 
conserved, for the simple reason that the whole system starts out the same on 
each run of the experiment (before the non-sharp state is created), and ends up 
different". -David Deutsch

-- 
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/137502699.320898.1574836623152%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further 
> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort 
> trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the 
> Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions.
> 
> Bruce
> 

In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, 1954)
Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to 
make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves 
comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as 
probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at once 
be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the probability 
density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert this, but how 
could it be proved?"

-- 
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/732462535.1203929.1574287233690%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> True about Schrödinger, but there are one world formulations in which 
> there is no wave function collapse, or no wave function at all to begin with.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really 
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], just 
impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid 
alternatives come into play only when we make an observation - which need, of 
course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to 
the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it. [] The compulsion to replace the 
simultaneous happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by alternatives, 
of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective probabilities, 
arises from the conviction that what we really observe are particles - that 
actual events always concern particles, not waves."
-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.

-- 
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/56679620.642504.1574154481471%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 11.57 Alan Grayson  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:48:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > > > Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson < 
> > agrays...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my 
> > > conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, 
> > > perhaps most, attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; 
> > > namely the wf. This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and 
> > > ridiculous models and conjectures -- such as MW, particles being in two 
> > > positions at the same time, radiioactive sources that are simultanously 
> > > decayed and undecayed, and so forth. The wf gives us information about 
> > > the state of a system and nothing more. Sorry to disappoint. AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > "The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a 
> > fiction to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter 
> > of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 
> > 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for 
> > mathematical calculations. For it has the character of an invariant of 
> > observation; that means it predicts the results of counting experiments, 
> > and we expect to find the same average numbers, the same mean deviations, 
> > etc., if we actually perform the experiment many times under the same 
> > experimental condition. Quite generally, how could we rely on probability 
> > predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and 
> > objective ?" -M. Born, 1949, p. 105-106
> > 
> > 
> > https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt
> >  
> > https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt
> > 
> > > 
> It seems to me that Born is going down a slippery slope. I see the wf as 
> "real" in an epistemological sense; it tells us what we know about a system. 
> But if it's "real" in an ontological sense, I think it leads to nonsensical 
> interpretations of superpositions, and reality, as I described above. AG
> 
"The underlying error may be the conviction that the system itself has to be 
represented in order to represent our actions upon it. In quantum theory we 
represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical 
reality on which they act. Quantum theory is a theory of actuality, not 
reality. I have taken this term from Whitehead's writings." -David Finkelstein, 
in 'The State of Quantum Physics'.

"Unfortunately, quantum theory is incompatible with the proposition that 
"measurements" are processes by means of which we discover some unknown but 
preexisting reality." -Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 
(7), July 1984

-- 
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/1708442130.122718.1573818896950%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after 
> many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute 
> ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. This leads 
> to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and conjectures -- 
> such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same time, radiioactive 
> sources that are simultanously decayed and undecayed, and so forth. The wf 
> gives us information about the state of a system and nothing more. Sorry to 
> disappoint. AG
> 

"The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a fiction to 
describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I 
personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as 
a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. For 
it has the character of an invariant of observation; that means it predicts the 
results of counting experiments, and we expect to find the same average 
numbers, the same mean deviations, etc., if we actually perform the experiment 
many times under the same experimental condition. Quite generally, how could we 
rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something 
real and objective ?" -M. Born, 1949, p. 105-106

https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt

-- 
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/1119972302.132598.1573814922842%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my 
> conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps 
> most, attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the 
> wf. This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and 
> conjectures -- such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same time, 
> radiioactive sources that are simultanously decayed and undecayed, and so 
> forth. The wf gives us information about the state of a system and nothing 
> more. Sorry to disappoint. AG
> > 
> > > 
> As I see it the wave function is epistemological on Mondays, Wednesdays 
> and Fridays, but ontological on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. On Shabbat 
> it is neither. 
> 
> LC 
> 

"Interpretations of quantum mechanics, unlike Gods, are not jealous, and thus 
it is safe to believe in more than one at the same time. So if the many-worlds 
interpretation makes it easier to think about the research you’re doing in 
April, and the Copenhagen interpretation makes it easier to think about the 
research you’re doing in June, the Copenhagen interpretation is not going to 
smite you for praying to the many-worlds interpretation. At least I hope it 
won’t, because otherwise I’m in big trouble." -Peter Shor

-- 
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/1479970207.492172.1573812175360%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['scerir' via Everything List]

Still breathing. But I was not connected. s.


> Il 31 ottobre 2019 alle 1.44 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, 
> or whatever, behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish 
> which-way, and that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When 
> such information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of such 
> information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
> experimental results demonstrate.
> > AG
> > 
> > About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, 
> > see https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026
> > 
> > > 
> I really thought you had passed away. This is good news of course, but 
> bittersweet since I sent a few emails many months ago which weren't responded 
> to. AG 
> 
> > > 
> > s.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/954405821.130707.1572503346930%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['scerir' via Everything List]

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, behaves 
as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and that wave 
goes through both slits producing interference. When such information exists, 
even if it isn't used or measured, the interference ceases to exist. Obviously, 
there's a huge mystery how the existence of such information is sufficient to 
destroy interference, but that's what the experimental results demonstrate.
AG

About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, see 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026
s.


-- 
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/1511461939.132066.1572473501717%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 22 ottobre 2019 alle 10.14 Philip Thrift  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> "Nor do they demonstrate ‘temporal nonlocality’ in their ‘delayed choice’ 
> form, beyond standard EPR correlations."
> 
> or
> 
> "Nor do they demonstrate ‘temporal nonlocality’ in their ‘delayed choice’ 
> form beyond standard EPR correlations."
> (removing the comma in the original sentence)
> 
> 
> That's it right there! Very sly.
> 

Temporal nonlocality = Retrocausality?

"Our work demonstrates and con firms that whether the correlations between two 
entangled photons reveal welcherweg information or an interference pattern of 
one (system) photon, depends on the choice of measurement on the other 
(environment) photon, even when all the events on the two sides that can be 
space-like separated, are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to 
decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long after - and 
even space-like separated from - the measurement teaches us that we should not 
have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena. Any 
explanation of what goes on in a specifi c individual observation of one photon 
has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete 
quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all 
information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results 
demonstrate that the view point that the system photon behaves either defi 
nitely as a wave or defi nitely as a particle would require faster-than-light 
communication. Since this would be in strong tension with the special theory of 
relativity, we believe that such a view point should be given up entirely."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578, , page 7

"Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice"

Authors: Xiao-song Ma 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Ma%2C+X , Johannes 
Kofler https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Kofler%2C+J , 
Angie Qarry 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Qarry%2C+A , Nuray 
Tetik https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Tetik%2C+N , 
Thomas Scheidl 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Scheidl%2C+T , Rupert 
Ursin https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Ursin%2C+R , 
Sven Ramelow 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Ramelow%2C+S , Thomas 
Herbst https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Herbst%2C+T , 
Lothar Ratschbacher 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Ratschbacher%2C+L , 
Alessandro Fedrizzi 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Fedrizzi%2C+A , 
Thomas Jennewein 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Jennewein%2C+T , 
Anton Zeilinger 
https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Zeilinger%2C+A

-- 
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/1287409330.1326216.1571760350886%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 20 ottobre 2019 alle 17.57 smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl 
> mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl > ha scritto:
> 
> Yes, Bruce is right on this point of the interference being detectable
> after the photons hitting the screen by transferring the which way
> information to the spins of electrons. But John Clark is right about the
> main topic this discussion is about. One can construe that also in terms
> of realism (I think John did mention this also some tome ago). The
> traditional view is that we must abandon realism, but that leads to
> paradoxes as it's problematic to then get to realism at the macroscopic
> level. In principle the macroscopic world is also described by QM, and
> any formalism that assumes non-realism would have to apply there at
> well. The MWI solves this problem in a much better way by explaining
> non-realism as an artifact of Many-World realism. The different
> realities in the different Worlds makes the notion of single World
> realism false.
> 
> 
> Saibal
> 

"The experimental results demonstrate the possibility of observing both 
particle-like and wave-like behavior of a light quantum via quantum mechanical 
entanglement. The which-path or both-path information of a quantum can be 
erased or marked by its entangled twin even after the registration of the 
quantum." https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

As for "realism" I think we need a definition. What is "real"? (Yes, I know the 
EPR definition.)

s.

“The probability function, which covered a wide range of possibilities, is 
suddenly reduced to a much narrower range by the fact that the experiment has 
led to a definite result, that actually a certain event has happened. In the 
formalism this reduction requires that the so-called interference of 
probabilities, which is the most characteristic phenomenon of quantum theory, 
is destroyed by the partly undefinable and irreversible interactions of the 
system with the measuring apparatus and the rest of the world.” (Heisenberg, 
1958)

-- 
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/1975278201.1206417.1571592568922%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

['scerir' via Everything List]

"In the delayed choice experiment, the decision whether or not to quantum erase 
the "which way" information can be made long after the original photons hit the 
screen and make their marks there. So decoherence has set in, and any parallel 
universes have necessarily become different in some ways. According to your 
interpretation, therefore, there can then be no interference, because the 
worlds cannot come back together. But we can restore the interference pattern 
by quantum erasing the which way information (e.g., by measuring in an 
orthogonal basis). So it is not a matter of whether there are differences 
between parallel universes -- it is whether or not the which way information 
still exists in some form or the other. Deutsch simply got the explanation of 
interference in terms of interactions between parallel universes wrong.
Bruce"

Zeilinger et al. wrote: 
"It is a general feature of delayed-choice experiments
that quantum effects can mimic an influence of future
actions on past events. However, there never emerges
any paradox if the quantum state is viewed only as `catalogue
of our knowledge' (Schroedinger, 1935) without any
underlying hidden variable description. Then the state is
a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes
and not a real physical object. The relative temporal order
of measurement events is not relevant, and no physical
interactions or signals, let alone into the past, are necessary
to explain the experimental results. To interpret
quantum experiments, any attempt in explaining what
happens in an individual observation of one system has
to include the whole experimental configuration and also
the complete quantum state, potentially describing joint
properties with other systems. According to Bohr and
Wheeler, no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon
until it is a registered phenomenon (Bohr, 1949; Wheeler,
1984). In light of quantum erasure and entanglement
swapping, one might like to even say that some registered
phenomena do not have a meaning unless they are
put in relationship with other registered phenomena (Ma
et al., 2012)." https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2930

-- 
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/1553839621.1052415.1571240606545%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 13.25 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 12:10:25 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 12.56 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of 
> > > > probability of being here and there at the same time, like having a non 
> > > > null amplitude of probability of going through each slit in the two 
> > > > slits experience. If not, you can’t explain the inference patterns, 
> > > > especially in the photon self-interference.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Interesting to point out that, in the two-slit, it is 
> > > > possible to have interference even when there is just one slit open 
> > > > (and the other slit shut, and viceversa, with some appropriate 
> > > > frequence). In this case it seems that the two amplitudes cannot 
> > > > interfere.
> > > > 
> > > > - Leonard Mandel : "On the Possibility of Observing 
> > > > Interference Effects with Light Beams Divided by a Shutter", 
> > > > J.Opt.Soc.Amer.,
> > > > 49, (1959), 931.
> > > > - R.M. Sillitto, Catherine Wykes: "An Interference 
> > > > Experiment With Light Beams Modulated In Anti-Phase By An Electro-Optic 
> > > > Shutter",
> > > > Physics Letters, 39-A-4, (1972), 333-334.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Isn't this called diffraction? AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > No, they show it is interference
> > 
> > > 
> ??? CMIIAW, but I'm pretty sure that single slit interference is called 
> DIFFRACTION. There is interference for a single slit. Apply Huygen's 
> principle where each point in the slit acts as source of waves which mutually 
> interference. AG
> 

Interference is interference. Diffraction is diffraction.

After useful considerations by Leonard Mandel [J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 49, (1959), 
931] at last R.M. Sillitto and Catherine Wykes [Physics Letters, 39-A-4, 
(1972), 333] performed the experiment suggested by Janossy and Nagy (1956) and 
found a beautiful INTERFERENCE when just one photon was present in their 
interferometer, at a time, and when their electro-optic shutter (closing one or 
the other slit, alternatively) was switched several times during the 
time-travel of each photon.

In terms of photons (that is to say: particles) the condition for INTERFERENCE 
is that the two in principle *possible* paths lead to the same cell of phase 
space, so that the path of each photon is intrinsically indeterminate (the 
usual 'welcher weg', or 'which path', issue).

Of course the shutter must be switched in a time which is less than the 
uncertainty in the time arrival of the photon.

In other words. Here the INTERFERENCE seems to be due to the 
indistinguishability of the two possible paths (only one of these paths is 
actual, because there is that shutter). It is very difficult to see here an 
interference between two amplitudes.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 12.56 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being 
> > here and there at the same time, like having a non null amplitude of 
> > probability of going through each slit in the two slits experience. If not, 
> > you can’t explain the inference patterns, especially in the photon 
> > self-interference.
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting to point out that, in the two-slit, it is possible to 
> > have interference even when there is just one slit open (and the other slit 
> > shut, and viceversa, with some appropriate frequence). In this case it 
> > seems that the two amplitudes cannot interfere.
> > 
> > - Leonard Mandel : "On the Possibility of Observing Interference 
> > Effects with Light Beams Divided by a Shutter", J.Opt.Soc.Amer.,
> > 49, (1959), 931.
> > - R.M. Sillitto, Catherine Wykes: "An Interference Experiment With 
> > Light Beams Modulated In Anti-Phase By An Electro-Optic Shutter",
> > Physics Letters, 39-A-4, (1972), 333-334.
> > 
> > > 
> Isn't this called diffraction? AG
> 

No, they show it is interference

> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

[BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being here and 
there at the same time, like having a non null amplitude of probability of 
going through each slit in the two slits experience. If not, you can’t explain 
the inference patterns, especially in the photon self-interference.


Interesting to point out that, in the two-slit, it is possible to have 
interference even when there is just one slit open (and the other slit shut, 
and viceversa, with some appropriate frequence). In this case it seems that the 
two amplitudes cannot interfere.

- Leonard Mandel : "On the Possibility of Observing Interference Effects with 
Light Beams Divided by a Shutter", J.Opt.Soc.Amer.,
49, (1959), 931.
- R.M. Sillitto, Catherine Wykes: "An Interference Experiment With Light Beams 
Modulated In Anti-Phase By An Electro-Optic Shutter",
Physics Letters, 39-A-4, (1972), 333-334.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

['scerir' via Everything List]

A numerus (literally: "number"i) was the term used for a unit of the Roman army 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army .. In the Imperial Roman army 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army (30 BC – 284 AD), it referred 
to units of barbarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian allies who were 
not integrated into the regular army structure of legions 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion and auxilia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliaries_(Roman_military) .

I'm inclined to think that numbers - for there obiectivity - need a good 
"counter" (somebody or somethink).

'I raised just this objection with the (extreme) ultrafinitist Yessenin Volpin 
during a lecture of his. He asked me to be more specific. I then proceeded to 
start with 2^1 and asked him whether this is "real" or something to that 
effect. He virtually immediately said yes. Then I asked about 2^2, and he again 
said yes, but with a perceptible delay. Then 2^3, and yes, but with more delay. 
This continued for a couple of more times, till it was obvious how he was 
handling this objection. Sure, he was prepared to always answer yes, but he was 
going to take 2^100 times as long to answer yes to 2^100 then he would to 
answering 2^1. There is no way that I could get very far with this.' -Harvey M. 
Friedman

Dunno if in each every part of this universe there is a good  "counter". Maybe 
universe itself, as a whole, is a "counter"?.

 'Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. 
Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations 
conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. 
Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most 
respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these 
labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all 
those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger 
commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on 
wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies".(Wheeler on page 1208 of 
Gravitation)

 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 4 dicembre 2018 alle 16.36 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:13:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > On 3 Dec 2018, at 20:57, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 1:05:26 PM UTC, 
> > > agrays...@http://gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:39:14 PM UTC, 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > If you write a 
> > > > superposition as a sum of eigenstates, why is it important, or 
> > > > relevant, or even true that the component states are coherent since 
> > > > eigenstates with distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal. This means there 
> > > > is no interference between the components of the superposition. AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Put another way; from what I've read, coherence among 
> > > > components of a superposition is necessary to guarantee interference, 
> > > > but since an eigenstate expansion of the superposition consists of 
> > > > orthogonal, non interfering eigenstates, the requirement of coherence 
> > > > seems unnecessary. AG
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > For decoherence to occur, one needs, presumably, a coherent 
> > > superposition. But when the wf is expressed as a sum of eigenstates with 
> > > unique eigenvalues, those eigenstates are mutually orthogonal; hence, 
> > > IIUC, there is no coherence. So, how can decoherence occur when the state 
> > > function, expressed as a sum of eigenstates with unique eigenvalues, is 
> > > not coherent? I must be missing something, but what it is I have no clue. 
> > > AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Decoherence never occurs, except in the mind or memory of the 
> > observer. Take the state up + down (assuming a factor 1/sqrt(2)). And O is 
> > an observer (its quantum state).
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > O has the choice to measure in the base {up, down}, in which case 
> > the Born rule says that he will see up, or down with a probability 1/2. He 
> > will *believe* that decoherence has occurred, but if we long at the 
> > evolution of the whole system O + the particle, all we get is
> > 
> > O-up up + O-down down, 
> > 
> > And some other observer could in principle test this. (O-up means O 
> > with the memory of having seen the particle in the up position).
> > 
> > But O could measure that particle in the base {up+down, up-down). 
> > He has just to rotate a little bit its polariser or Stern-Gerlach device. 
> > In that case he obtains up+down with the probability one, which souls not 
> > be the case with a mixture of up and down. In that case, coherence of up 
> > and down do not disappear, even from the pot of the observer.
> > 
> > Decoherence is just the contagion of the superposition to anything 
> > interacting with it, including the observer, and if we wait long enough the 
> > whole causal cone of the observer.
> > 
> > Bruno
> > 
> > > 
> Thanks, but I'm looking for a solution within the context of interference 
> and coherence, without introducing your theory of consciousness. Mainstream 
> thinking today is that decoherence does occur, but this seems to imply 
> preexisting coherence, and therefore interference among the component states 
> of a superposition. If the superposition is expressed using eigenfunctions, 
> which are mutually orthogonal -- implying no mutual interference -- how is 
> decoherence possible, insofar as coherence, IIUC, doesn't exist using this 
> basis? AG
> 

There are instruments like the MZI (Mach-Zehnder Interferometer).. In this 
insrtrument one (spli)amplitude goes through path A, the other (plit)amplitude 
goes through par'th B. At the end of their travef both amplitudes recombine 
interferentially giving *always a single* outome. As for the de-coherence 
frankly i did not realize its conceptual meaning.

> 
> > > 
> > > > > -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> 

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 18.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 4:39:42 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 15.38 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, 
> > > > > scerir wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 
> > > > > > 14.29 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle 
> > > > > > > > described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If the x-component of spin is 
> > > > > > > > measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through a 
> > > > > > > > Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the 
> > > > > > > > particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Why?  Won't the measured value be 
> > > > > > > along the x axis in both directions, in effect Up or Dn? AG
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > "Hence we must conclude that the system 
> > > > > > described by the |+>x state is not the
> > > > > > same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and 
> > > > > > !-> states. This means that each atom in the
> > > > > > beam is in a state that itself is a 
> > > > > > combination of the |+> and |-> states. A superposition
> > > > > > state is often called a coherent 
> > > > > > superposition since the relative phase of the two terms is
> > > > > > important."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > .see pages 18-19 here 
> > > > > > https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > Try answering in your own words. When the SG 
> > > > > device is oriented along the x axis, now effectively the z-axix IIUC, 
> > > > > and we're dealing with superpositions, the outcomes will be 50-50 
> > > > > plus and minus. Therefore, unless I am making some error, what you 
> > > > > stated above is incorrect. AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  is a superposition, but 
> > > > since sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  =  (s+)_x the particle will always 
> > > > emerge 'up'
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > I'll probably get back to on the foregoing. In the meantime, 
> > > consider this; I claim one can never MEASURE Up + Dn or Up - Dn with a SG 
> > > apparatus regardless of how many other instruments one uses to create a 
> > > composite measuring apparatus (Bruno's claim IIUC). The reason is simple. 
> > > We know that the spin operator has exactly two eigenstates, each with 
> > > probability of .5 . We can write them down. We also know that every 
> > > quantum measurement gives up an eigenvalue of some eigenstate. Therefore, 
> > > if there existed an Up + Dn or Up - Dn eigenstate, it would have to have 
> > > probability ZERO since the Up and Dn eigenstates have probabilities which 
> > > sum to unity. Do you agree or not, and if not, why? TIA, AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > I think the question should rather be how to prepare a 
> > superposition state like  sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z] . But when you have 
> > this specific state, and when you orient the SG along "x", you always get 
> > "up".
> > 
> > > 
> I'm still not sure I understand your comment. I will think about it some 
> more.  But back to my original question; Is there any circumstance where the 
> result could be an eigenvalue of Up + Dn  or Up - Dn? Alternately, can Up + 
> Dn or Up - Dn ever be an eigenstate of the spin vector? TIA, AG
> 

Try this 
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/quvis/simulations_html5/sims/superposition/superposition-mixed-states.html

at "step-by-step explanation" page.

At the bottom of that page you can choose 5 options (1-2-3-4-5) and read the 
explanation (and look at the "orientation of SGA")

> 
> > > 
> >  
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> 

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 15.38 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, scerir 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, 
> > > > > scerir wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by 
> > > > > > the state psi = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the x-component of spin is measured by 
> > > > > > passing the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its 
> > > > > > field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will ALWAYS emerge 
> > > > > > 'up'.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > Why?  Won't the measured value be along the x 
> > > > > axis in both directions, in effect Up or Dn? AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > "Hence we must conclude that the system described by 
> > > > the |+>x state is not the
> > > > same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and !-> states. 
> > > > This means that each atom in the
> > > > beam is in a state that itself is a combination of the 
> > > > |+> and |-> states. A superposition
> > > > state is often called a coherent superposition since 
> > > > the relative phase of the two terms is
> > > > important."
> > > > 
> > > > .see pages 18-19 here https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Try answering in your own words. When the SG device is 
> > > oriented along the x axis, now effectively the z-axix IIUC, and we're 
> > > dealing with superpositions, the outcomes will be 50-50 plus and minus. 
> > > Therefore, unless I am making some error, what you stated above is 
> > > incorrect. AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  is a superposition, but since sqrt(1/2) 
> > [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  =  (s+)_x the particle will always emerge 'up'
> > 
> > > 
> I'll probably get back to on the foregoing. In the meantime, consider 
> this; I claim one can never MEASURE Up + Dn or Up - Dn with a SG apparatus 
> regardless of how many other instruments one uses to create a composite 
> measuring apparatus (Bruno's claim IIUC). The reason is simple. We know that 
> the spin operator has exactly two eigenstates, each with probability of .5. 
> We can write them down. We also know that every quantum measurement gives up 
> an eigenvalue of some eigenstate. Therefore, if there existed an Up + Dn or 
> Up - Dn eigenstate, it would have to have probability ZERO since the Up and 
> Dn eigenstates have probabilities which sum to unity. Do you agree or not, 
> and if not, why? TIA, AG
> 

I think the question should rather be how to prepare a superposition state like 
 sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z] . But when you have this specific state, and when 
you orient the SG along "x", you always get "up".

> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x + (s-)_x]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > and (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x - (s-)_x]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (where _z, _x, are the z-component and the 
> > > > > > x-component of spin)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > so that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = 
> > > > > > (s+)_x.   (pure state, not mixture state)..
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > AGrayson2000 asked "If a system is in a 
> > > > > > superposition of states, whatever value measured, will be repeated 
> > > > > > if the same system is repeatedly measured.  But what happens if the 
> > > > > > system is in a mixed state?"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does Everett's "relative state 
> > > > > > interpretation" show how to interpret a real superposition (like 
> > > > > > the above, in which the particle will always emerge 'up') and how 
> > > > > > to interpret a mixture (in which the particle will emerge 50% 'up' 
> > > > > > or 50% 'down')?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are 
> > > > > subscribed to 

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/quvis/simulations_html5/sims/superposition/superposition-mixed-states.html

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi 
> > > > = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .
> > > > 
> > > > If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the 
> > > > spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along 
> > > > the x-axis, the particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Why?  Won't the measured value be along the x axis in both 
> > > directions, in effect Up or Dn? AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > "Hence we must conclude that the system described by the |+>x state 
> > is not the
> > same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and !-> states. This means 
> > that each atom in the
> > beam is in a state that itself is a combination of the |+> and |-> 
> > states. A superposition
> > state is often called a coherent superposition since the relative 
> > phase of the two terms is
> > important."
> > 
> > .see pages 18-19 here https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu
> > 
> > > 
> Try answering in your own words. When the SG device is oriented along the 
> x axis, now effectively the z-axix IIUC, and we're dealing with 
> superpositions, the outcomes will be 50-50 plus and minus. Therefore, unless 
> I am making some error, what you stated above is incorrect. AG
> 

sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  is a superposition, but since sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z 
+(s-)_z]  =  (s+)_x the particle will always emerge 'up'

> 
> > > 
> > > > >  
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x + (s-)_x]
> > > > 
> > > > and (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x - (s-)_x]
> > > > 
> > > > (where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component 
> > > > of spin)
> > > > 
> > > > so that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.   
> > > > (pure state, not mixture state)..
> > > > 
> > > > AGrayson2000 asked "If a system is in a superposition 
> > > > of states, whatever value measured, will be repeated if the same system 
> > > > is repeatedly measured.  But what happens if the system is in a mixed 
> > > > state?"
> > > > 
> > > > Does Everett's "relative state interpretation" show how 
> > > > to interpret a real superposition (like the above, in which the 
> > > > particle will always emerge 'up') and how to interpret a mixture (in 
> > > > which the particle will emerge 50% 'up' or 50% 'down')?
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) 
> > [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .
> > 
> > If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 
> > particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, 
> > the particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.
> > 
> > > 
> Why?  Won't the measured value be along the x axis in both directions, in 
> effect Up or Dn? AG
> 

"Hence we must conclude that the system described by the |+>x state is not the
same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and !-> states. This means that each atom 
in the
beam is in a state that itself is a combination of the |+> and |-> states. A 
superposition
state is often called a coherent superposition since the relative phase of the 
two terms is
important."

.see pages 18-19 here https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu

>  
> 
> > > 
> > In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x + (s-)_x]
> > 
> > and (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x - (s-)_x]
> > 
> > (where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component of spin)
> > 
> > so that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.   (pure state, 
> > not mixture state)..
> > 
> > AGrayson2000 asked "If a system is in a superposition of states, 
> > whatever value measured, will be repeated if the same system is repeatedly 
> > measured.  But what happens if the system is in a mixed state?"
> > 
> > Does Everett's "relative state interpretation" show how to 
> > interpret a real superposition (like the above, in which the particle will 
> > always emerge 'up') and how to interpret a mixture (in which the particle 
> > will emerge 50% 'up' or 50% 'down')?
> > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

['scerir' via Everything List]

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z + 
(s-)_z] .

If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through 
a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will 
ALWAYS emerge 'up'..

In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x + (s-)_x]

and (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_x - (s-)_x]

(where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component of spin)

so that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.   (pure state, not mixture 
state)..

AGrayson2000 asked "If a system is in a superposition of states, whatever value 
measured, will be repeated if the same system is repeatedly measured.  But what 
happens if the system is in a mixed state?"

Does Everett's "relative state interpretation" show how to interpret a real 
superposition (like the above, in which the particle will always emerge 'up') 
and how to interpret a mixture (in which the particle will emerge 50% 'up' or 
50% 'down')?

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 13.42 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift < 
> > cloud...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 
> > > > 'gunpowder' paradox.
> > > > 
> > > > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable 
> > > > equilibrium, perhaps a charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic 
> > > > forces, can spontaneously combust, and where the average life span of 
> > > > the whole setup is a year. In principle this can quite easily be 
> > > > represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the psi-function 
> > > > characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
> > > > according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the 
> > > > course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function 
> > > > then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. 
> > > > Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into 
> > > > an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is 
> > > > no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> > > > 
> > > > Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 
> > > > 1935. in Fine, A. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum 
> > > > Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from 
> > > > Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be 
> > > turned into an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in 
> > > reality there is no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is interesting.
> > > 
> > > Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality 
> > > and stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
> > > 
> > > -pt
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > There are situations in which a superposition is a superposition 
> > and not an "expectation-catalogue" or a mixture. See 
> > https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 
> > https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 pages 8 etc.
> > 
> > > 
> Can you post the relevant pages? The cost for access is high. TIA, AG
> 

Try this (it is a very good book)   https://tinyurl.com/y7f6y7rs   and read 
page 11

> 
> > > 
> >  
> > 
> > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at 
> https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> 
> 

 

--
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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.
> > 
> > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, 
> > perhaps a charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can 
> > spontaneously combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup 
> > is a year. In principle this can quite easily be represented 
> > quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the psi-function characterizes a 
> > reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, according to your equation 
> > [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course of a year this is no 
> > longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of 
> > not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can 
> > this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
> > affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
> > not-exploded.'
> > 
> > Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, 
> > A. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
> > Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
> > August 1935.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> 
> Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
> adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is no 
> intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> 
> 
> This is interesting.
> 
> Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
> stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
> 
> -pt
> 
>  
> 

There are situations in which a superposition is a superposition and not an 
"expectation-catalogue" or a mixture. See 
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 pages 8 etc.

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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >   I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but 
> > > > > > > after some time elapses the state of the cat could Dead or Alive; 
> > > > > > > not necessarily the original state, Alive. AG 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > >   When recoherence is no longer possible that's a real 
> > > > > > > > physical change.  The system has evolved.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since decoherence is a unitary process, 
> > > > > > isn't recoherence always possible, even if not FAPP? AG
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure.  If you 
> > > > > > could reverse the outgoing waves and the local universe.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Since recoherence is always possible, even if 
> > > > astronomically unlikely like many physical macro processes, why do you 
> > > > make the point that there's a real physical change when it's no longer 
> > > > possible (which is never)?  I ask because your comment is confusing. AG
> > > > 
> > > > > > > That's the real physical change.  
> > > > Outgoing radiation has left at the speed of light out into an expanding 
> > > > universe; it ain't comin' back.  Why is that confusing?
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > You seem to conflate two concepts; Irreversible FAPP, and 
> > Irreversible (aka Absolutely Irreversible, aka Irreversible in Principle). 
> > I tend to believe that every unitary process is either easily reversible, 
> > or irreversible FAPP (meaning possibly reversible even if hugely 
> > improbable). In the case of two closed containers attached to each other, 
> > one in vacuum state and the other filled with gas at some temperature, one 
> > can imagine all the gas in one container finally equalizing in both 
> > containers. That would occur in finite time, but is Irreversible FAPP. In 
> > your example above, one can imagine the outgoing photons bending around 
> > super dense masses and returning to their original positions or states. So 
> > I would say this outcome is Irreversible FAPP, but you say it's 
> > Irreversible, meaning Absolutely Irreversible or Irreversible in Principle. 
> > So which is it? AG
> > 
> > The more interesting issue is whether the WF in the Cat experiment, 
> > or for an atom with a half life for decay, evolves in time while the box is 
> > closed. I say it must evolve because the probability amplitudes are time 
> > dependent. What say you? AG
> > 
> > > 
> Seriously; if the wf for a radioactive atom evolves in time, why would 
> placing it in a box change that (or do I misunderstand what you and Bruce are 
> claiming)? AG
> 

The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.

'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a charge 
of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and 
where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can 
quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the 
psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course 
of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a 
sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of 
interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of 
a real state of affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded 
and not-exploded.'

Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The Shaky 
Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, 
Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935.

> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > Brent
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 4 agosto 2018 alle 23.32 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude 
> the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut up 
> and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a connection 
> between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump sycophants; they seem immune 
> to simple facts, such as the foolishness of thinking copies of observers can 
> occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG
> 

Frankly I cannot understand, from the following famous page, whether 
Schroedinger thinks the wavefunction as ontic or epistermic or both!

Erwin Schroedinger - § 7. The psi-Function as a Catalogue of Expectations.

Continuing with the exposition of the official teaching, let us turn to the 
psi-function
mentioned above (§ 5). It is now the instrument for predicting the probability 
of
measurement outcomes. It embodies the totality of theoretical future 
expectations, as laid
down in a catalogue. It is, at any moment in time, the bridge of relations and 
restrictions
between different measurements, as were in the classical theory the model and 
its state at
any given time. The psi-function has also otherwise much in common with this 
classical
state. In principle, it is also uniquely determined by a finite number of 
suitably chosen
measurements on the object, though half as many as in the classical theory. 
Thus is the
catalogue of expectations laid down initially. From then on, it changes with 
time, as in
the classical theory, in a well-defined and deterministic ("causal") way - the 
development
of the psi-function is governed by a partial differential equation (of first 
order in the time
variable, and resolved for dy/dt). This corresponds to the undisturbed motion 
of the
model in the classical theory. But that lasts only so long until another 
measurement is
undertaken. After every measurement, one has to attribute to the psi-function a 
curious,
somewhat sudden adaptation, which depends on the measurement result and is 
therefore
unpredictable. This alone already shows that this second type of change of the 
psi-function
has nothing to do with the regular development between two measurements. The 
sudden
change due to measurement is closely connected with the discussion in § 5, and 
we will
consider it in depth in the following. It is the most interesting aspect of the 
whole theory,
and it is precisely this aspect that requires a breach with naive realism. For 
this reason,
the psi-function cannot immediately replace the model or the real thing. And 
this is not
because a real thing or a model could not in principle undergo sudden 
unpredictable
changes, but because from a realistic point of view, measurements are natural 
phenomena
like any other, and should not by themselves cause a sudden interruption of the 
regular
evolution in Nature.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 3 agosto 2018 alle 0.56 Bruce Kellett  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >
> 
> > > On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent 
> > > Meeker < meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work 
> > > > for all choices of measurement angle.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and 
> > > Alice, but the whole point is that it does if you take into account all 
> > > Alices and Bobs in the multiverse.
> > > 
> > > > > Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  
> > > Aren't you assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of 
> > > Alices and Bobs before this experiment; not just the few cases that arise 
> > > from the different experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  
> > > there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 
> > > 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from this ensemble.
> > 
> > > Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that 
> > clearly doesn't work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of 
> > unmatched Alice's and Bob's, and a major problem with non-local influences 
> > between disjoint universes in order to match any pair up. I think one can 
> > rule any such idea out very much more simply by just following the 
> > particles from a single entangled state to the respective experimenters. 
> > The statistics must work for such single-world pairs, so the invocation of 
> > infinite numbers of this or that is not actually going to help.
> 
> Bruce
> 


LEV VAIDMAN, 'Teleportation: Dream or Reality?'

'Consider teleportation, say in the BBCJPW scheme. We perform some action in one

place and the state is immediately teleported, up a local transformation 
(“rotation”), to

an arbitrary distant location. But relativity theory teaches us that anything 
which is

physically significant cannot move faster than light. Thus it seems that it is 
the classical

information (which cannot be transmitted with superluminal velocity) about the 
kind of

back “rotation” to be performed for completing the teleportation which is the 
only essential

part of the quantum state. However, the amount of the required classical 
information

is very small. Is the essence of a state of a spin-1/2 particle just 2 bits?

I tend to attach a lot of physical meaning to a quantum state. For me, a 
proponent of

the MWI, everything is a quantum state. But I also believe in relativistic 
invariance, so

only entities which cannot move faster than light have physical reality. Thus, 
teleportation

poses a serious problem to my attitude. I was ready to admit that “I” am just a 
quantum

state of N ∼ 1030 particles. This is still a very rich structure: a complex 
function on RN.

But now I am forced to believe that “I” am just a point in the R2N ?!

The resolution which I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the 
MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local measurement 
of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state  by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to be transmitted for teleportation of a quantum state—the information which 
world we

need to split into, i.e., what transformation has to be applied—is much smaller 
than the

information which is needed for the creation of such a state. For example, for 
the case

of a spin-1/2 particle there are only 4 different worlds, so in order to 
teleport the state

we have to transmit just 2 bits.'

 













hich I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local 
measurement of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to 

Re: Realizable quantum states

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 31 luglio 2018 alle 5.06 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 12:57:34 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett < 
> > bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > From: Jason Resch 
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:22 PM 
> > > Bruce Kellett < bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > From: Jason Resch 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:38 PM Brent 
> > > > > > Meeker < meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/30/2018 7:39 AM, Jason Resch 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > >   Does it exist and 
> > > > > > > > > happen, or does the final result merely materialize magically 
> > > > > > > > > like the live or dead cat?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > In my view, we don't know 
> > > > > > > > > how the final result materializes; the great unsolved problem 
> > > > > > > > > in QM, aka the measurement problem, or a large part of it. 
> > > > > > > > > But why introduce intermediate values, which IIUC the theory 
> > > > > > > > > says don't exist. AG 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Where does it say that?  If I 
> > > > > > > > recall correctly, Schrodinger did not put a caveat on his 
> > > > > > > > equation which said it cannot be used to refer to anything that 
> > > > > > > > is real.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > >   That was the point of Schroedinger's cat experiment.  
> > > > > > > > Schroedinger invented it to show the fallacy of regarding the 
> > > > > > > > wf as real because it led to the absurdity of a cat that was 
> > > > > > > > both alive and dead.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > That was a bit before he started to realize 
> > > > > > that the equation for which he won the Nobel prize might be true.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > In physics, 
> > > > > > equations are neither true nor false. They are either useful or 
> > > > > > not. And they require interpretation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > The point is, Shrodinger went from:
> > > > A) believing that what mathematics of his equation 
> > > > plainly said was happening about the cat lead to a 
> > > > contradiction/paradox/negative result
> > > > to
> > > > B) Starting to come around to believing it might 
> > > > actually be describing reality as it is.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Not every useful description tells us 
> > > > what reality is "really" like.
> > > 
> > > Besides, we have come a long way since Schrödinger, so he 
> > > isn't the final word on anything at all.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > If you follow the comments above, you will see this was a response 
> > to someone saying that Schrodinger introduced the cat experiment to show 
> > the absurdity of believing the wave function was real.
> > 
> > > 
> You might be referring to my comments. I didn't exactly say that the wf 
> isn't real. I was focused on the superposition being wrongly interpreted, and 
> IMO this is what Schroedinger showed with his cat experiment. I then 
> concluded that superposition, and hence the wf which is described by a 
> superposition, contains information only. Whether this qualifies for "real" 
> depends on what "real" means. But if the wf contains information only, I 
> suppose we can say it is real in some sense even though no one has seen one! 
> AG
> 

this reminds me of "negative-result measurements"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment

there are cases in which the ontic nature of a component of the superposition 
is questionable.

> 
> > > 
> > Jason 
> > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG

Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an 
abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?

This is the question.

This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a possessed 
property unless it is measured.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 13 luglio 2018 alle 20.55 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 8:24:32 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > scerir wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 
> > > > > > 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 
> > > > > > > PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 
> > > > > > > > > at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 
> > > > > > > > > > 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM 
> > > > > > > UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 4,

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, 
> > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, 
> > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> &

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, 
> > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, 
> > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition of states is wrong. Although I have 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > asked several times, no one here seems able to offer 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a plausible justification for interpreting that a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > system in a superposition of states, is physically in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing things, you will see there exists an 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for any 
> > > > > > > > > > > > &

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 
> > > 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, 
> > > > > Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The 
> > > > > emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> > > > > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed 
> > > > > nucleus occurs in that time before decoherence.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > Is that calculated / postulated if the 
> > > > > radioactive source interacts with its environment? Can't it be 
> > > > > isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does that imply about 
> > > > > being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done 
> > > > usually with optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that 
> > > > techniques exist for making these sort of measurements and materials 
> > > > are such that one can pass photons through beam splitters or hold 
> > > > photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest. At higher 
> > > > energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very difficult. At 
> > > > intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons and 
> > > > mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things 
> > > > become impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for 
> > > > constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the 
> > > > light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. 
> > > > Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of 
> > > > your detectors.
> > > > 
> > > > LC
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a 
> > > superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat 
> > > alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and 
> > > undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of 
> > > those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum 
> > > of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components 
> > > in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> > > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as 
> > > a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led 
> > > to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of 
> > > decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions 
> > > because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. 
> > > Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, 
> > > even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. 
> > > These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum 
> > > superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the 
> > > superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to 
> > > calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the 
> > > state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there 
> > > remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition 
> > > from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the 
> > > measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than 
> > > accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO 
> > > doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what 
> > > amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be 
> > > viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > It is not for short time, it is forever.
> > 
> > > 
> No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
> the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
> short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere 
> long before it is associated with any experiment. AG
>  
> 
> > > You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is 
> indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest.
> > 
> > > 
> No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although 

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

['scerir' via Everything List]

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really 
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just 
*impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid 
*alternatives* come into play only when we make an observation - which need, of 
course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to 
the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it. [] The compulsion to replace the 
"simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by 
*alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective 
*probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really observe are 
particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves." -Erwin 
Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.


AG:  As your original quotation indicates, this was written pre-Everett who 
published his thesis in 1957. Who first got the idea that every outcome that's 
possible, must occur.  This is the person who led us astray. Unlikely that such 
a dumb idea would take hold. 


S:  Schroedinger wrote that (see above) in 1952 (July), well before H. Everett 
III. But the question might be: Schroedinger did not believe in *particles*, 
only in waves. Frankly I do not think that Everett - at least in his original 
"relative state" interpretation - had problems with *particles*. He usually 
reasoned in terms of 'wavefunction of particle'. "However, it seems to us to be 
much easier to understand particle aspects from a wave picture (concentrated 
wave packets) than it is to understand wave aspects (diffraction, interference, 
etc.) from a particle picture." "Even though the apparatus does not indicate 
any definite system value (since there are no independent system or apparatus 
states), one can nevertheless look upon the total wave function  as a 
superposition of pairs of subsystem states, each element of which has a 
definite q value and a correspondingly displaced apparatus state."

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

['scerir' via Everything List]

Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir  ha scritto:

Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in mind.

“The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all 
really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just 
impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, a sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. . . . according to the 
quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it.” --Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of 
Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays
 s.



The actual quote was a bit different and IMO much more interesting. Here the 
correct quotation.

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really 
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just 
*impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid 
*alternatives* come into play only when we make an observation - which need, of 
course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to 
the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it. [] The compulsion to replace the 
"simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by 
*alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective 
*probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really observe are 
particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves."

-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.


 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 2.24 Russell Standish  ha 
> scritto:

> There's considerable evolutionary advantage, just not enough time yet
> for evolution to have acted :).

For some reason this reminds me of a quote: "It is because we have blindly 
excluded the lessons of these regular bodies from the domain of human knowledge 
that we are still in doubt about the great doctrine that the only laws of 
matter are those which our minds must fabricate, and the only laws of mind are 
fabricated for it by matter". -James Clerck Maxwell, "Analogies in Nature", 
Feb. 1856,  (The Scientific Letters and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell: 
1846-1862).

I'm inclined to think there is something deeper at work here, deeper than the 
evolution based on the survival of the fittest (are mathematicians fittest?). 
I'm inclined to think there is a smooth transition from matter to form or - to 
say it better - to information (and mathematics may be a sort of *objective* 
*testable* information theory about possible worlds, relations, laws of nature, 
objects). Hylo-morphism.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 14.08 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
> 
> I think a lot of our abstract reasoning ability results from our being 
> social creatures, and having to create mental models of other 
> people/groups/tribes, etc. to predict their behaviors under different 
> scenarios. To guess what they want, what they will do, what is likely to 
> happen if this happens or if that happens.  In our evolutionary environment, 
> nothing was more complex than other humans or groups of humans, and the 
> smarter we became, the smarter we had to get to maintain some ability to 
> model and predict the behavior of others.
> 
> It is then, perhaps not too major of a leap to turn this "abstract 
> modeling of a systems behavior" ability from analyzing people or groups, to 
> analyzing other systems, be they games, puzzles, engineering, mathematical 
> objects, contemplating physical laws, etc.
> 
> A question might arise, why don't other social animals have similar 
> abstract reasoning abilities?  Perhaps they do and cannot communicate it, or 
> perhaps communication itself adds so many additional layers of complexity to 
> the analyzing of social systems and people that it required the evolution of 
> special purpose structures in the brain which enhanced abstract reasoning 
> abilities.  Still a third option, is that human analytical capability largely 
> relies on the high level of language processing capacity of the brain as a 
> necessary ingredient in performing some forms of abstract reasoning. -- I 
> think there are exceptions and counter examples in many of these cases, for 
> example Tesla could visually manipulate designs in his mind, and high level 
> Chess players can see and manipulate board states in their minds without 
> relying on language to represent those states.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Steven Ridgway  mailto:ste...@ridgway.com > wrote:
> 
> ?space?--   On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:25 Dr Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> "But presumably the argument is about certain cognitive skills which 
helped our species be extraordinarily successful, and also gave us the 
capability to understand algebraic topology."

I've always found it a bit mysterious that humans are so good at abstract 
mathematics. I can see that the evolutionary pressures to improve tool making 
and hunting skills could have given us basic mathematical capabilities - but we 
are far better at it than seems reasonable. i.e. it seems a stretch to imagine 
our ability to understand differential equations and prove Fermat's last 
theorem just fell into place as an accidental by product of something else.

It seems to me that a lot of complex engineering in our brains must exist to 
support the level of abstract reasoning we are capable of - and I don't see 
much evolutionary advantage to explain how this evolved.

We are familiar with the idea that a large multiverse could explain the 
apparent fine tuning of our universe to support conscious observers. I.e. given 
we are conscious observers it shouldn't be surprising that we find ourselves in 
a part of the multiverse that allows our existence.

However, right now we aren't just conscious observers, we are conscious 
observers pondering the unreasonable effectiveness of brains to do mathematics. 
Maybe similarly to the fine tuning argument we shouldn't be surprised to find 
ourselves in a part of the multiverse where brains did develop mathematical 
ability. It would have been extremely unlikely for our brains to have evolved 
the way they did - but in a sufficiently large multiverse we will inevitably 
find ourselves in the place where it did - given that we are observer moments 
that must have exactly that kind of abstract reasoning capability to understand 
this point!

Is it valid to use this kind of reasoning? To use the details of the type of 
conscious experience we are having right now to condition the type of universe 
we expect to find ourselves in? I'm not sure to be honest - but I think there 
is a mystery to be explained so the idea is appealing.

Note if it's true that evolving mathematical capability was a long shot, then a 
consequence of it would be that it would be very unlikely that we find 
technologically advanced aliens in the observable universe. There are a lot of 
stars out there - but the small probability of brains evolving abstract 
reasoning would overwhelm that I suspect.

- Steven Ridgway




--

-- -- 
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
-- -- 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Shan Gao on quantum measurement (links)

['scerir' via Everything List]

Shan Gao, "The measurement problem revisited", downloadable paper

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-017-1476-y

see also http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11811/

and http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13314/

and https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02738

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 12 giugno 2018 alle 10.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case 
> > that Schrodinger's Cat implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the 
> > former shows the fallacy (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating 
> > macro systems in superpositions, which is more or less the starting state 
> > equation used in the latter. Stay tuned. AGT
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > The simplest argument is that macro objects (other than the 
> > precious few exceptions previously noted, such as Buckyballs) have no well 
> > defined deBroglie wave lengths. Hence, they cannot participate in a 
> > superposition of states which inherently implies interference among its 
> > components. A macro object has a huge set of individual entanglements, each 
> > with its own well defined deBroglie wave length, but the net interference 
> > among them statistically washes out to zero. We can go further. A macro 
> > object, virtually by definition, can NEVER be isolated from its 
> > environment. Thus, it can NEVER manifest a well defined wave length to make 
> > a superposition possible. It's NOT the case that a macro object can 
> > participate in a superposition for even a very short time and then 
> > decohere. This is where Schroedinger went wrong. He assumed a non existent 
> > superposition of states, which if existent would imply the cat must be 
> > alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short duration if 
> > decoherence theory is applied. But decoherence theory posits a solution for 
> > a non existent problem. It assumes that a superposed state can exist for a 
> > macro object for an exceedingly short time until it decoheres. However, as 
> > is the case for Scroedinger's cat or any macro object, it can NEVER be 
> > ISOLATED from its environment, which is the necessary condition for 
> > positing a superposition. Thus, decoherence theory need not be applied; 
> > indeed, should not be applied. And if it isn't generally applied for macro 
> > entities, then the wf cannot imply other worlds.  CMIIAW. AG
> > 
> > > 
> 
> The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
> that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
> states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
> constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after their 
> inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be isolated 
> from their environments, making this seminal superposition of states an 
> illusory construction. AG
> 

In the August 8, 1935 letter to Schrödinger Albert Einstein says that he will 
illustrate a problem by means of a “crude macroscopic example”.

The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a charge 
of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and 
where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can 
quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the 
psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course 
of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a 
sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of 
interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of 
a real state of affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded 
and not-exploded.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 5 giugno 2018 alle 5.05 Bruce Kellett  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com >
> 
> > > 
> > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
> > 
> > > > > From: 
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > Remember that the analysis I have given above is 
> > > > schematic, representing the general progression of unitary evolution. 
> > > > It is not specific to any particular case, or any particular number of 
> > > > possible outcomes for the experiment.
> > > > 
> > > > Bruce
> > > > 
> > > > OK. For economy we can write,  (|+>|e+> + |->|e->),  
> > > > where e stands for the entire universe other than the particle whose 
> > > > spin is being measured. What is the status of the interference between 
> > > > the terms in this superposition? For a quantum superposition to make 
> > > > sense, there must be interference between the terms in the sum. At 
> > > > least that's my understanding of the quantum principle of 
> > > > superposition. But the universe excluding the particle being measured 
> > > > seems to have no definable wave length; hence, I don't see that this 
> > > > superposition makes any sense in how superposition is applied. Would 
> > > > appreciate your input on this issue. TIA, AG
> > > > 
> > > > > > > A superposition is just a sum of vectors 
> > > > in Hilbert space. If these vectors are orthogonal there is no 
> > > > interference between them. Your quest for a wavelength in every 
> > > > superposition is the wrong way to look at things. Macroscopic objects 
> > > > have vanishingly small deBroglie wavelengths, but the can still be 
> > > > represented as vectors in a HIlbert space, so can still form 
> > > > superpositions. I think you are looking for absolute classicality in 
> > > > quantum phenomena -- that is impossible, by definition.
> > > 
> > > Bruce
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > If that's the case, why all the fuss about Schrodinger's cat? AG
> > 
> > > Is there a fuss about Schrödinger's cat? Whatever fuss there is, 
> > is not about the possibility of a superposition of live and dead cats. It 
> > is about choosing the correct basis in which to describe the physical 
> > situation. The Schrödinger equation does not specify a basis, and that is 
> > its main drawback. In fact, that observation alone is sufficient to sink 
> > the naive many-worlds enthusiast -- he doesn't know in which basis the 
> > multiplication of worlds occurs.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
"In this article, we demonstrate that we can measure the de Broglie wavelength 
of a two-photon wave packet (biphoton) with a Young double-slit experiment. The 
incident two-photon wave packet is generated collinearly from a nonlinear 
crystal by the process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion. The photons 
transmitted by the double slit form a fourth-order pattern which
is a superposition of two Young interference patterns with different 
periodicity. One of them results from the interference of the individual 
photons (“the parts of the object” [in J. Jacobson, G. Björk, I. Chuang, and Y. 
Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4835 (1995]) and has an oscillation period of 
lambda_0. The other pattern is due to the interference of the “object as a 
whole with itself,” i.e., the interference of the “biphoton” and shows a 
periodicity of (lambda_0) / 2."

Measurement of the de Broglie Wavelength of a Multiphoton Wave Packet
E. J. S. Fonseca, C. H. Monken, and S. Pádua, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 5 APRIL 
1999, VOLUME 82, NUMBER 14

https://tinyurl.com/ya5rxn8a
https://tinyurl.com/yatbb4ku





 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Kant: something, nothing

['scerir' via Everything List]

An interesting (maybe!) paper about Kant and nothingness, or emptyness

https://www.academia.edu/36714875/Kant_on_Cold

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.21 'scerir' via Everything List 
> <everything-list@googlegroups.com> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 
> ha scritto:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> > mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Right. I was just making the observation 
> > > > that when we don't see advanced EM waves (coming from the future?), 
> > > > it's generally not seen as a big deal and they're ignored. But when 
> > > > decoherence or the MWI implies the creation of full-blown worlds (that 
> > > > we can't observe), there seems to be a large body of opinion that 
> > > > accepts this bizarre result without serious criticism that there's no 
> > > > mechanism or process for creating full-blown worlds. No. I don't 
> > > > believe in such worlds. I tend to think a large segment of professional 
> > > > physicists have gone mad.  AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Except you've got it 
> > > > > backwards.  There is a mechanism and process for creating them FAPP, 
> > > > > evolution by the Schroedinger equation, which is the same process 
> > > > > used in predicting results.  But there is no physical mechanism for 
> > > > > making them disappearthere's a mathematical process, i.e. taking 
> > > > > the partial trace which is the same as applying a projection operator 
> > > > > (with a little better justification).
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > There's a distinction between subspaces that are disjoint and 
> > > inaccessible to each other, and their non existence. Apparently you want 
> > > to make the case that their mutual inaccessibility is equivalent to their 
> > > non existence.
> > > 
> > > > > Operationally, it is.
> > 
> > Brent
> > 
> > > Sometimes the principle of conservation of quantum information 
> > (no-cloning, no-deleting) seems to have something to do with MWI - 
> > conservation of quantum information and "relative state" formulation both 
> > depend on linearity( ?) - in the sense that any other world must be 
> > inaccessible (just to conserve quantum information).
> 
> s.
> 
> "In conclusion, we have shown that any theory for which dynamics is 
> linear with respect to stochastic mixing, the no-cloning and no-deleting 
> principles follow from the law of conservation of information, and from 
> whether two copies contain a different amount of information than a single 
> copy. In particular, this result allows us to understand the physical reason 
> for which perfect cloning or
> deleting are impossible. They are forbidden because they infringe a 
> principle of conservation of information. Classically, two copies and one 
> copy contain the same information. However in the quantum case, these 
> information contents are generically different, putting restrictions on 
> cloning and deleting processes."
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038   
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038
> 
> see also, for entropy issues, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044
> 

"Considering no-cloning and no-deleting together (and excluding wavefunction 
collapse as a valid physical process) we see that
quantum information (of non-orthogonal states) has a quality of “permanence”: 
creation of copies can only be achieved by importing the information from some 
other part of the world where it had already existed; destruction (deletion of 
a copy) can only be achieved by exporting the information out to some other 
part of the world where it must continue to exist."

-Jozsa in https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0204153

>  
> 
> > > 
> >  
> > 
> > --
> > 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 ever

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 6:21:47 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker < 
> > meek...@verizon.net> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Right. I was just making the 
> > > > > observation that when we don't see advanced EM waves (coming from the 
> > > > > future?), it's generally not seen as a big deal and they're ignored. 
> > > > > But when decoherence or the MWI implies the creation of full-blown 
> > > > > worlds (that we can't observe), there seems to be a large body of 
> > > > > opinion that accepts this bizarre result without serious criticism 
> > > > > that there's no mechanism or process for creating full-blown worlds. 
> > > > > No. I don't believe in such worlds. I tend to think a large segment 
> > > > > of professional physicists have gone mad.  AG
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Except you've got 
> > > > > > it backwards.  There is a mechanism and process for creating them 
> > > > > > FAPP, evolution by the Schroedinger equation, which is the same 
> > > > > > process used in predicting results.  But there is no physical 
> > > > > > mechanism for making them disappearthere's a mathematical 
> > > > > > process, i.e. taking the partial trace which is the same as 
> > > > > > applying a projection operator (with a little better justification).
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > There's a distinction between subspaces that are 
> > > > disjoint and inaccessible to each other, and their non existence. 
> > > > Apparently you want to make the case that their mutual inaccessibility 
> > > > is equivalent to their non existence.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Operationally, it is.
> > > 
> > > Brent
> > > 
> > > > > Sometimes the principle of conservation of quantum 
> > > information (no-cloning, no-deleting) seems to have something to do with 
> > > MWI - conservation of quantum information and "relative state" 
> > > formulation both depend on linearity( ?) - in the sense that any other 
> > > world must be inaccessible (just to conserve quantum information).
> > 
> > s.
> > 
> > > 
> Is there an established result and general consensus in the physics 
> community that information is conserved in classical physics? In quantum 
> physics? Consider this a Yes or No question. AG
> 

http://www.scottaaronson.com/barbados-2016.pdf

> 
> > >  
> > 
> > "In conclusion, we have shown that any theory for which dynamics is 
> > linear with respect to stochastic mixing, the no-cloning and no-deleting 
> > principles follow from the law of conservation of information, and from 
> > whether two copies contain a different amount of information than a single 
> > copy. In particular, this result allows us to understand the physical 
> > reason for which perfect cloning or
> > deleting are impossible. They are forbidden because they infringe a 
> > principle of conservation of information. Classically, two copies and one 
> > copy contain the same information. However in the quantum case, these 
> > information contents are generically different, putting restrictions on 
> > cloning and deleting processes."
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038   
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038
> > 
> > see also, for entropy issues, 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044
> >  
> > 
> > > > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> > > 
> > > > >  
> > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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, 

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > Right. I was just making the observation that 
> > > when we don't see advanced EM waves (coming from the future?), it's 
> > > generally not seen as a big deal and they're ignored. But when 
> > > decoherence or the MWI implies the creation of full-blown worlds (that we 
> > > can't observe), there seems to be a large body of opinion that accepts 
> > > this bizarre result without serious criticism that there's no mechanism 
> > > or process for creating full-blown worlds. No. I don't believe in such 
> > > worlds. I tend to think a large segment of professional physicists have 
> > > gone mad.  AG
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Except you've got it backwards.  There is 
> > > > a mechanism and process for creating them FAPP, evolution by the 
> > > > Schroedinger equation, which is the same process used in predicting 
> > > > results.  But there is no physical mechanism for making them 
> > > > disappearthere's a mathematical process, i.e. taking the partial 
> > > > trace which is the same as applying a projection operator (with a 
> > > > little better justification).
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > There's a distinction between subspaces that are disjoint and 
> > inaccessible to each other, and their non existence. Apparently you want to 
> > make the case that their mutual inaccessibility is equivalent to their non 
> > existence.
> > 
> > > Operationally, it is.
> 
> Brent
> 
Sometimes the principle of conservation of quantum information (no-cloning, 
no-deleting) seems to have something to do with MWI - conservation of quantum 
information and "relative state" formulation both depend on linearity( ?) - in 
the sense that any other world must be inaccessible (just to conserve quantum 
information).

s.

"In conclusion, we have shown that any theory for which dynamics is linear with 
respect to stochastic mixing, the no-cloning and no-deleting principles follow 
from the law of conservation of information, and from whether two copies 
contain a different amount of information than a single copy. In particular, 
this result allows us to understand the physical reason for which perfect 
cloning or
deleting are impossible. They are forbidden because they infringe a principle 
of conservation of information. Classically, two copies and one copy contain 
the same information. However in the quantum case, these information contents 
are generically different, putting restrictions on cloning and deleting 
processes."

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038   https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038

see also, for entropy issues, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044
 

> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Primary matter

['scerir' via Everything List]

ha-ha!

farmers are dumb in Italy too!

but I'm kind of surreal farmer, I've studied crazy things in the last 50 years 
... because farming is boring indeed.

I think that Aristotle's 'hylo-morphism' (matter and form) is an interesting 
topic. Aristotle - if I remember well - also thought that there was a sort of 
evolution from "matter" to "form", from "matter" to " soul", from "matter" to 
 "information" I would rather  say.

s.

> Il 26 maggio 2018 alle 22.56 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 9:56:39 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Aristotle distinguishes two aspects of ordinary things: form and 
> > matter.
> > 
> > Form only exists when it enforms matter. Matter is just potential 
> > to be enformed.
> > 
> > Aristotle identifies matter with potentiality, form with actuality.
> > 
> > "For, as we said, word substance has three meanings, form, matter, 
> > and the complex of both and of these three, what is called matter is 
> > potentiality, what is called form actuality." (De Anima, II)
> > 
> > (According to Heisenberg wavefunctions are "potentialities", at 
> > least before measurements).
> > 
> > > 
> Bruno exudes extreme aversion to "primary matter", and Aristotle, the 
> presumed creator of the concept. But it's hard to see what exactly he objects 
> to. You seem quite erudite on a variety of subjects. Is this a general 
> characteristic of farmers in Italy today? Inquiring minds want to know. AG
> 
> > > 
> >  
> > 
> > > > > Il 26 maggio 2018 alle 10.13 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > What is it according to Aristotle (or whoever is responsible 
> > > for the concept), and what is the basis for refuting its existence? -- in 
> > > 25 words or less. AG
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Primary matter

['scerir' via Everything List]

Aristotle distinguishes two aspects of ordinary things: form and matter.

Form only exists when it enforms matter. Matter is just potential to be 
enformed.

Aristotle identifies matter with potentiality, form with actuality.

"For, as we said, word substance has three meanings, form, matter, and the 
complex of both and of these three, what is called matter is potentiality, what 
is called form actuality." (De Anima, II)

(According to Heisenberg wavefunctions are "potentialities", at least before 
measurements).

> Il 26 maggio 2018 alle 10.13 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> What is it according to Aristotle (or whoever is responsible for the 
> concept), and what is the basis for refuting its existence? -- in 25 words or 
> less. AG
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

I believe I'll wait for a better theory.  One that includes gravity and 
spacetime and consciousness.

Brent

"I saw that far within its depths there lies,
by Love together in one volume bound,
that which in leaves lies scattered through the world;
substance and accident, and modes thereof,
fused, as it were, in such a way, that that,
whereof I speak, is but One Simple Light."

-Dante, Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXXIII, 85-90


"Nel suo profondo vidi che s'interna,
legato con amore in un volume,
ciò che per l'universo si squaderna:
sustanze e accidenti e lor costume
quasi conflati insieme, per tal modo
che ciò ch'i' dico è un semplice lume!"

-Dante, Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXXIII, 85-90


 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Einstein quote

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 14.17 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:20:42 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the 
> > > fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact 
> > > constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the 
> > > nineteenth century.'
> > > 
> > > What does he mean? AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > What is an "inductive method"? AG
> 

"The theory of relativity is a beautiful example of the basic character of the 
modern development of theory. That is to say, the hypotheses from which one 
starts become ever more abstract and more remote from experience. But in return 
one comes closer to the preeminent goal of science, that of encompassing a 
maximum of empirical contents through logical deduction with a minimum of 
hypotheses or axioms. The intellectual path from the axioms to the empirical 
contents or to the testable consequences becomes, thereby, ever longer and more 
subtle. The theoretician is forced, ever more, to allow himself to be directed 
by purely mathematical, formal points of view in the search for theories, 
because the physical experience of the experimenter is not capable of leading 
us up to the regions of the highest abstraction. Tentative deduction takes the 
place of the predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youthful state 
of science. Such a theoretical structure must be quite thoroughly elaborated in 
order for it to lead to consequences that can be compared with experience. It 
is certainly the case that here, as well, the empirical fact is the 
all-powerful judge. But its judgment can be handed down only on the basis of 
great and difficult intellectual effort that first bridges the wide space 
between the axioms and the testable consequences. The theorist must accomplish 
this Herculean task with the clear understanding that this effort may only be 
destined to prepare the way for a death sentence for his theory. One should not 
reproach the theorist who undertakes such a task by calling him a fantast; 
instead, one must allow him his fantasizing, since for him there is no other 
way to his goal whatsoever. Indeed, it is no planless fantasizing, but rather a 
search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences."

--Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954



> 
>  
> 
> > > 
> > As far as I understand, according to E., physics is made from 
> > *principles* and from *operations*. As for *operations* (operationism in 
> > physics, there are books about that, by Bridgman) tet us think, in example, 
> > of Special Relativity.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, for E., also QM is based on *operations*!
> > 
> > 
> > https://sites.google.com/site/dlhquantum/educational/einstein-heisenberg 
> > https://sites.google.com/site/dlhquantum/educational/einstein-heisenberg
> > 
> > and G. Holton here
> > 
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/Holton.html 
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/Holton.html
> > 
> > and here
> > 
> > http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1292474 
> > http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1292474 (scroll down)
> > 
> > > > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list .
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 

Re: Einstein quote

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental 
> concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic 
> philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century.'
> 
> What does he mean? AG
> 

As far as I understand, according to E., physics is made from *principles* and 
from *operations*. As for *operations* (operationism in physics, there are 
books about that, by Bridgman) tet us think, in example, of Special Relativity.

Unfortunately, for E., also QM is based on *operations*!

https://sites.google.com/site/dlhquantum/educational/einstein-heisenberg

and G. Holton here

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/Holton.html

and here

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1292474 (scroll down)

> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

On the reversal of time in natural law (Schroedinger)

['scerir' via Everything List]

Schroedinger wrote an interesting (little known) paper, in 1931.

It is a sort of 'Two-time symmetric interpretation' or 'Two-state vector 
quantum formalism', I mean that 'ABL rule', that Aharonov's stuff.

“Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,” Sitz. preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math. 
Klasse 9 (1931), 3-12.

You can read (download the pdf) an english version here

https://tinyurl.com/ycju6z2c

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.