Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-01-20 Thread '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

2019-01-20 Thread '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

2019-01-20 Thread '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?

2018-12-16 Thread '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

2018-12-04 Thread '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

2018-11-16 Thread '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

2018-11-16 Thread '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

2018-11-16 Thread '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

2018-11-16 Thread '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

2018-11-15 Thread '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

2018-11-15 Thread '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

2018-10-23 Thread '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

2018-10-23 Thread '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

2018-10-23 Thread '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

2018-08-05 Thread '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?

2018-08-03 Thread '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

2018-07-31 Thread '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

2018-07-15 Thread '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

2018-07-13 Thread '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

2018-07-12 Thread '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

2018-07-10 Thread '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

2018-07-09 Thread '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

2018-07-04 Thread '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)

2018-06-21 Thread '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)

2018-06-21 Thread '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

2018-06-19 Thread '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

2018-06-19 Thread '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)

2018-06-13 Thread '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

2018-06-12 Thread '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

2018-06-05 Thread '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

2018-06-02 Thread '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

2018-05-27 Thread '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

2018-05-27 Thread '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

2018-05-27 Thread '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

2018-05-26 Thread '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

2018-05-26 Thread '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

2018-05-19 Thread '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

2018-05-14 Thread '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

2018-05-14 Thread '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)

2018-05-04 Thread '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.


Re: Entanglement

2018-05-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


> Il 3 maggio 2018 alle 16.28 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> > > On 1 May 2018, at 18:13, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal < 
> > marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be > ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 
> > > 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> > > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds 
> > > > or manywords interpretation.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, 
> > > unless you agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of 
> > > the many superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the 
> > > collapse postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> > > worlds/states/minds.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those 
> > years, another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not 
> > possible, in general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe 
> > during the split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states 
> > of different energy. In this special case energy increase in one universe 
> > and decrease in another universe. 
> > 
> > > 
> The conservation of energy seems to me to be a classical, and mainly 
> statistical notion. I do not see why the many-universes would violate 
> thermodynamics in any branches, given that, by linearity of evolution, each 
> branch evolves independently of the others, and the branches can only 
> interfere, statistically, from the first person perspective of the observer. 
> I am not even sure how we could superpose two states with different energy. 
> May be you could explain me this.
> 
> Bruno
> 

The worlds are not autonomous during the split (decoherence process) of the 
original unique world.

"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

In a superposition of states of different energy I am inclined to think 
(naively) that  the energy of the superposition state lies in between the 
energy of its constituents. Actually the theory only states there are 
expectation values, that is to say what you get if you perform many 
measurements, and then you average. Now the measurement process itself is an 
"interaction" with the superposition state, and I do not know whether this 
interaction, in the MWI, is unitary or not.

"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

But let us read Hartle here https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9410006

http://blog.jessriedel.com/2015/08/23/how-to-think-about-quantum-mechanics-part-6-energy-conservation-and-wavefunction-branches/

.

> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > > Everett is just the guy who realise that the 
> > MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of everything, by taking the first 
> > person view (what he called subjective) of the observers, as their memories 
> > get as much quasi orthogonal that the results they could have attributed to 
> > a collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is purely “subjective” 
> > (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To reverse the 
> > entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical universe in 
> > some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult.
> > > 
> > > But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood 
> > > that the collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. 
> 

time arrow, measurement, superposition

2018-05-02 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Here below a point  made by Asher Peres.

--

One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern between 
the cat alive and the cat dead.

If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the state

ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]

would be meaningful.

One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble of 
dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on state ψ.

In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.

Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.

In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.

I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to construct 
the ψ-measuring machine.

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Brent:  I'm suspicious of these fantasy thought experiments. But however 
detailed it may be doesn't answer my question as to what it would mean to erase 
the welcher weg but not the memory that the weg was detected. I noted that this 
is not like a classical erasure of a memory because in this case the coherence 
is maintained, sowhen the welcher weg is erased there is no long any 
fact-of-the-matter as to which way it went. There is no fact-of-the-matter that 
it was detected to go left or right. So the "memory" if it exists, is a false 
memory.

-

https://www.nature.com/news/how-quantum-trickery-can-scramble-cause-and-effect-1.22208

<>

The specific experiment is here https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01683. Not an easy 
read ... SWITCH, "causal witness", and so on

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 20.49 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal 
> > <marc...@ulb.ac.be> mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 
> > > 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> > > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds 
> > > > or manywords interpretation.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, 
> > > unless you agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of 
> > > the many superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the 
> > > collapse postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> > > worlds/states/minds.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those 
> > years, another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not 
> > possible, in general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe 
> > during the split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states 
> > of different energy. In this special case energy can increase in one 
> > universe and can decrease in another universe. 
> > 
> > > That led to the WAY therorem.
> 
> Brent
> 
Yes.

J.S.Bell wrote somewhere: "I think Einstein thought that Bohm's model was too 
glib too simple. I think he waslooking for a much more profound rediscovery of 
quantum phenomena. The idea that you could just add a few variables and the 
whole thing [quantum mechanics] would remain unchanged apart from the 
interpretation, which was a kind of trivial addition to ordinary quantum 
mechanics, must have been a disappointment to him. I can understand that to see 
that that is all you need to do to make a hidden-variable theory. I am sure 
that Einstein, and most other people, would have liked to have seen some big 
principle emerging, like the principle of relativity, or the principle of the 
conservation of energy. In Bohm's model one did not see anything like that."

It is interesting to point out that according to Mermin QM is about 
"correlations without correlata" (correlations  have physical reality while the 
correlata have no physical reality). According to C.Fuchs the opposite seems to 
be true in MWI (being a realistic interpretation), that is to say: "correlata 
without correlations". See https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801057 (pdf page 23).

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> > interpretation.
> > 
> > > 
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you 
> agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many 
> superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse 
> postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> worlds/states/minds.
> 

Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those years, 
another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not possible, in 
general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe during the 
split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states of different 
energy. In this special case energy increase in one universe and decrease in 
another universe. 

> Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly 
> quagmire of everything, by taking the first person view (what he called 
> subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal 
> that the results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and 
> the irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in 
> principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go 
> outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, 
> is rather difficult.
> 
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). 
> Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a 
> plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> > mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think Schroedinger and his cat bear 
> > > > some responsibility.  In trying to debunk Born's probabilistic 
> > > > interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of observation changing the 
> > > > physical state...even though no one had actually proposed that. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Brent
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > “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 Assays (Ox 
> > > > Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995).
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Who is Schrodinger referring to? This was written before 
> > > 1957, when Everett published his MWI.? Were other theorists advancing the 
> > > idea that all alternatives are physically manife

Re: Entanglement

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct 
> > > to say there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal 
> > > for measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing 
> > > with time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement 
> > > occurred? AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a 
> > "second" measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.
> > 
> > > 
> Right. But isn't there a measurement, and THEN its hypothetical reversal; 
> that is, the attempt to reconstruct its wf by going backward in time? How 
> does space-like separated get into the act? AG
> 

A bit difficult for me. Tentatively, I would say that if temporal ordering 
between measurements of two (let us say space-like) entangled parties is 
indefinite, also temporal ordering between hypothetical reversal of 
measurements of two (let us say space-like) entangled parties is indefinite.

I can imagine another option. The equivalence between non-locality 
(non-separability) and retro-causality.

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".


And the translation is  AG
 

something like  "at some random time, in some random place"

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence 
> > to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend 
> > strongly to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, 
> > TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its 
> > origin at the quantum level.'
> > 
> >  Maybe.
> > 
> > But ... since we say that there is non-separability between 
> > (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also 
> > say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation 
> > between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no 
> > *causal* ordering)?
> > 
> > Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884 https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248
> > 
> > > 
> If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say there 
> is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for measurements 
> -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with time-like 
> ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement occurred? AG
> 

Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a "second" 
measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.

As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".

I am inclined to think there is a law of nature (a statistical law of nature) 
regulating the behaviour of entangled parties.

But I also know that the speed of quantum information (the speed of quantum 
influences between entangled parties) could be (in principle!!!) >> c.

Following set of links is, more or less, complete.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007008

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410025

https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795

https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308

-serafino

Greenberger: ”Quantum mechanics is magic! It is not black magic, but it i s 
nonetheless magic!”

-- 
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

2018-05-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try to 
make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend strongly to the 
view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN 
PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its origin at the quantum 
level.'

 Maybe.

But ... since we say that there is non-separability between (position/momentum 
or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also say there is quantum 
non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation between space-like 
separated events) but also *in time* (there is no *causal* ordering)?

Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248


-- 
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

2018-04-29 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
-scerir: IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
interpretation.

-AG: I disagree. He's clearly criticizing the idea that all possible 
measurements are manifested in reality, which surely suggests other people were 
advancing a theory he strongly disliked.
. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
### G Bacciagaluppi writes, in  philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8876/1/beable3.pdf
The picture of the two cats, while surely an overinterpretation o f 
Schroedinger’s own views, may resonate with modern Everettians. In fact, if the 
above remarks on mass density as the three-dimensional manifestation ofthe 
Hilbert-space wave function are correct, then this picture just is the Everett 
interpretation.

The difference to the usual presentations in terms of Hilbert-space components 
of the wave function that constitute “worlds”, is
merely that here the emphasis is on the three-dimensional manifestation of the 
different components of the wave function.

As remarked by Bitbol (Schroedinger 1995, p. 17), it also resonates with some 
of Schroedinger’s own words (with the appropriate qualifications and warnings 
about overinterpretation):

'Nearly every result [a quantum theorist] pronounces is about the
probability of this or that or that... happening — with usually a
great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives
but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just
impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for,
let us 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.'
(Schroedinger 1995, p. 19)

-- 
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: Measurements in QM

2018-04-29 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
I have two questions, on a personal note and curiosity.

1) Generally speaking, at what level do you understand the content
of your links, on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being full comprehension?
I find them difficult and think I should start my study of QM from
the beginning, using the link Brent gave me about tensors, which
is part of an excellent course at MIT.

### It depends on the specific paper. Sometimes 100 on that scale. I would say, 
in general, that I understand the papers FAPP.

2) Is your life as a farmer in Italy finished?

### Unfortunately no!

-- 
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: Measurements in QM

2018-04-29 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
The short answer is, No. Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger 
evolution is unitary only with MWI. So reversible implies MWI. And since we 
don't have access to other MWI worlds, reversiblity is impossible for us "*in 
principle*.

Bruce

It seems interesting to point out that Vaidman (manyworlder) has something to 
say about that here (see page 11 of pdf, point 10)
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006
It seems that reversibility has different consequences following MWI vs 
following CI.
 

-- 
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

2018-04-29 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
interpretation.

> Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some 
> > responsibility.  In trying to debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he 
> > appealed to the absurdity of observation changing the physical state...even 
> > though no one had actually proposed that. 
> > > 
> > > Brent
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > “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 Assays (Ox Bow Press, 
> > Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995).
> > 
> > > 
> Who is Schrodinger referring to? This was written before 1957, when 
> Everett published his MWI.? Were other theorists advancing the idea that all 
> alternatives are physically manifested in reality? 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: Measurements in QM

2018-04-28 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/34

http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/site/siteArticle.asp?ar=206

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.879


> Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 18.39 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly 
> irreversible, that is irreversible in principle, or just statistically 
> irreversible, that is, reversible but with infinitesimal probability? TIA, 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

2018-04-27 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility.  In trying to 
> debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of 
> observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually 
> proposed that. 
> 
> Brent
> 
> 

“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 Assays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995).

-- 
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

2018-04-27 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the 
Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions on-line.

https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM

https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek

He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer 
(consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element in quantum 
physics, this should not be taken to mean that the consciousness of the 
‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh measurement interaction. In Physics and 
Philosophy in 1958, Heisenberg argued that “the transition from the ‘possible’ 
to the ‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation” but this transition 
occurs “applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation”. Only 
once the “interaction of the object with the measuring device” has taken place 
can we speak of the actualization, but here he was careful to point out that 
“it is not connected with the act of registration of the result, by the mind of 
observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 54).'

'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to be associated 
with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars have often traced this view to 
von Neumann’s analysis of measurement in his Mathematische Grundlagen der 
Quantenmechanik published in 1932 (von Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s 
complementarity, the measurement device is described using the concepts of 
classical physics, and not according to the laws of quantum mechanics, in von 
Neumann’s presentation, the measurement device is given a quantum-mechanical 
treatment (Bub, 1995). According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of the 
problem, when we observe a quantum system, there is an instantaneous change of 
the wave function in Hilbert space – it collapses – a process which is not 
described by the Schrödinger equation. Precisely what von Neumann’s 
philosophical views on this matter were is more difficult to judge, though as 
Becker and Gavroglou have observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a 
realist view of the wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to 
the need to introduce the consciousness of the observer in the measuring chain 
(Becker, 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it was the 1939 monograph La 
Théorie de l’Observation en Méchanique Quantique by London and Bauer which we 
find the first explicit mention of the claim that the reduction of the wave 
function was the result of the conscious activity of the human mind (French, 
2002).'

etc 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.
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

2018-04-27 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons before 
they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way and then forgot 
the result. I think the act of recording the result, by a consciousness or 
anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no record is made, then erasure 
is perfectly possible. Just knowing that there were welcher weg photons that 
have been erased is not quite the same thing.

Bruce


this paper seems interestig (and also quantitative), a concrete example of the 
relationship between information and interference in quantum systems.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09442


Measurement-induced decoherence and information in double-slit interference

Joshua Kincaid https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=Joshua+Kincaid 
, Kyle McLelland 
https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=Kyle+McLelland , Michael 
Zwolak https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=Michael+Zwolak

(Submitted on 30 Jun 2016)

> The double slit experiment provides a classic example of both interference 
> and the effect of observation in quantum physics. When particles are sent 
> individually through a pair of slits, a wave-like interference pattern 
> develops, but no such interference is found when one observes which "path" 
> the particles take. We present a model of interference, dephasing, and 
> measurement-induced decoherence in a one-dimensional version of the 
> double-slit experiment. Using this model, we demonstrate how the loss of 
> interference in the system is correlated with the information gain by the 
> measuring apparatus/observer. In doing so, we give a modern account of 
> measurement in this paradigmatic example of quantum physics that is 
> accessible to students taking quantum mechanics at the graduate or senior 
> undergraduate levels.
> 

-- 
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

2018-04-24 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent me, but 
from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that although he 
doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products in quantum 
mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically based, tensor 
products are NOT empirically based. Perhaps your link says otherwise. AG

 

Chris Fuchs wrote 'Notes on a Paulian Idea: Foundational, Historical, Anecdotal 
and Forward-Looking Thoughts on the Quantum', 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105039 
In this paper he also says something about tensor products 'invented' (as for 
QM) by von Neumann and Weyl, and about Kennedy's paper. See page 276 and page 
449 (of pdf)

' https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=Christopher+A.+Fuchs 
https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author=N.+David+Mermin

-- 
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

2018-04-24 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 20.13 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:57:53 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).
> > 
> > You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
> > 
> > I can also send the pdf privately, by email
> > 
> > -serafino
> > 
> > > 
>  I was able to download it, but already paid the 10 bucks. :- (   How is 
> your special problem doing? AG 
> 

I've many special problems these days! And, you know, the country is 
ultra-chaotic. 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 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

2018-04-24 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).

You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p

I can also send the pdf privately, by email

-serafino

> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very 
> > > > interesting story.
> > > > 
> > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE 
> > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling 
> > > proofs 
> > > https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=KENOTE==http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1086%2F289885
> > > 
> > > 
> > > J. B. Kennedy https://philpapers.org/s/J.%20B.%20Kennedy
> > > Philosophy of Science 
> > > https://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?pub=827 62 (4):543-560 ( 1995)
> > > Abstract  
> > > I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs 
> > > (Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 
> > > 1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to 
> > > show that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting 
> > > signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these proofs can be 
> > > mathematically unified; they are disguised versions of a single theorem. 
> > > Second, I argue that these proofs are circular. The essential theorem 
> > > relies upon the tensor product representation for combined systems, which 
> > > has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms. Historically, the 
> > > construction of this representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built 
> > > no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the 
> > > wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out 
> > > empirically by the class of proofs considered
> > >  
> > > Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, 
> > > but very likely well worth it IMO. AG
> > > 
> > > > > I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who 
> > > says something is not ruled out empirically by some mathematical proofs, 
> > > and says something has no physical basis in axioms.   He seems very 
> > > confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism.
> > 
> > Brent
> > 
> > > 
> I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor 
> product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even 
> if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the tensor 
> product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the postulates of 
> 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 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

2018-04-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story.

https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE


> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 7.00 Brent Meeker  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/23/2018 6:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > First Principles, the tensor product can be used to describe the 
> composite system. It's virtually impossible to find an explanation from First 
> Principles. AG
> > 
> > > It's because the two systems are assumed independent, so every 
> > combination of variable values, one system A and one from system B and 
> > occur...which it the definition of a tensor product.
> 
> 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 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: Re:: Entanglement

2018-04-22 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> 
> > > In case of a collapse theory, the non-local effect is far 
> more problematic. Alice then finds a result at her place and because there is 
> no other copy of her who found the other result, new information has 
> appeared. And that means that Bob's result is now also well defined but the 
> information about his measurement exists at a space-like separation. In the 
> MWI Bob may know that Alice has already made her measurement, but he would 
> also know that Alice exists as a superposition of two copies who will have 
> found two different results, so there exists no information about what he is 
> about to find later when he will measure his spin at the distant location 
> where Alice is as that entire place is in a superposition.
> > 
> > Saibal
> > 
> > > That is where the wave-function comes in: the wave function acts 
> > non-locally to ensure that when Bob does make his measurement, he will only 
> > obtain results that agree with angular momentum conservation -- his results 
> > cannot be arbitrary because that would violate the basic conservation law 
> > enshrined in the singlet wave-function. Bob's measurement is independent of 
> > Alice, but the state that he is measuring is necessarily correlated with 
> > Alice's -- changed by Alice's measurement. Many worlds does not alter this 
> > basic fact.
> 
> Bruce
> 
It seems (to me) interesting to point out that Vaidman, speaking about 
teleportation, writes:
'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 hasto 
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.'
See https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810089 page 11

Now "the correlated pair incorporates all possible quantum states" seems to be 
exactly "the psi-Function as a Catalogue of Expectations" as Schroedinger named 
it in 1935.
See https://homepages.dias.ie/dorlas/Papers/QMSTATUS.pdf

-serafino

-- 
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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2018-01-06 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Somebody wrote: "So there are probably grades of consciousness, just as there 
are grades of ability to communicate. Cats, dogs, and some birds, are quite 
high on this scale, but jellyfish are probably quite low. But can you rule out 
the possibility that some environmental awareness does not constitute low level 
consciousness?"

# Indeed, there are grades of consciousness, I would say a smooth transition 
from a grade of consciuosness to another grade. When suffering from 
hydrocephalus (water in the brain) you may experience some apparent 
consciousness (and self-consciousness), but that is a true "first person" 
experience, or feeling. In other words, if somebody asks "who are you?", or 
"where are you now?", "what day is today?", you may be in trouble. Four years 
ago I said to the doctor: "That is simple, today is August 13, 1978."). Thus, 
to me, consciousness is not a 0/1 function, 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 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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2017-12-31 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> 
> Il 31 dicembre 2017 alle 17.51 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha 
> scritto:
> 
> On 28 Dec 2017, at 08:50, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > Il 27 dicembre 2017 alle 23.24 Brent Meeker 
> > > <meeke...@verizon.net>
> > > ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is 
> > > discrete?
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > According to Deutsch "Every finitely realizable physical system can
> > be perfectly simulated by a universal model computing machine
> > operating by finite means." (It is the Church-Turing-Deutsch
> > principle, I guess).
> > 
> > > 
> Not at all. The computability notion of Church, Turing does not rely
> on anything physical. You can define the notion of universal machine
> in pure number theory.
> 
> Deutsch thesis is a completely different thesis, and to relate them
> needs to understand first how physics emerge from numbers, or to
> invoke some deity.
> 

I'm not so familiar with the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle and the different 
meanings (or conceptual roots) of this principle. I must re-read something.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/cos576/papers/deutsch85.pdf

https://philpapers.org/rec/DEUPPA

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01886521

> 
> > > 
> > Whether space-time is a finitely realizable physical system 
> > franklyI do not know. Feynman wrote "It always bothers me that according to
> > the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine
> > an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on
> > in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a
> > region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why
> > should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one
> > tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the
> > hypothesis ultimately physics will not require a mathematical
> > statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed and the
> > laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its
> > apparent complexities. But this is just speculation." (The Character
> > of Physical Law - Ch. 2)
> > 
> > > 
> You assume a metaphysical physical reality. With computationalism,
> that is quite premature. There are no evidence, and it makes the mind-
> body problem insoluble in any weak mechanist theory.
> 
> Then the universal machine offers a solution on a plate already, and
> we can test it.
> 
> Bruno
> 

Yes, I still assume physical reality, and (quantum) systems as carriers of 
finite quantities of informations (yes, information is a difficult concept, 
especially in strange situations like entanglement swapping, and the like) . I 
may be wrong, of course.

s.

> 
> >
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > However, gamma ray propagation from distant supernova show no
> > > dispersion, which implies that spacetime is smooth to severl 
> > > orders
> > > of
> > > magnitude below the Planck scale.
> > > 
> > > But either way the physics a cannot be compared to Bruno's 
> > > theory
> > > because his theory makes not definite prediction even about 
> > > the
> > > existence of spacetime.
> > > 
> > > Brent
> > > 
> > > On 12/27/2017 1:22 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > Brent wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of
> > > > computationalism have actually been derived. I think 
> > > > most of them
> > > > are aspirational. For example, what is the proof that 
> > > > spacetime is
> > > > continuous - in fact what is the proof there is such a 
> > > > thing as
> > > > spacetime?
> > > > 
> > >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2017-12-27 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> Il 27 dicembre 2017 alle 23.24 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> ha scritto:
> 
> So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is discrete?

According to Deutsch "Every finitely realizable physical system can be 
perfectly simulated by a universal model computing machine operating by finite 
means." (It is the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle, I guess). Whether 
space-time is a finitely realizable physical system frankly I do not know. 
Feynman wrote "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand 
them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical 
operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, 
and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that 
tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what 
one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the 
hypothesis ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that 
in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be 
simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities. But this is 
just speculation." (The Character of Physical Law - Ch. 2) 

> However, gamma ray propagation from distant supernova show no
> dispersion, which implies that spacetime is smooth to severl orders of
> magnitude below the Planck scale.
> 
> But either way the physics a cannot be compared to Bruno's theory
> because his theory makes not definite prediction even about the
> existence of spacetime.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 12/27/2017 1:22 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> > Brent wrote:
> > 
> > A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of computationalism 
> > have actually been derived. I think most of them are aspirational. For 
> > example, what is the proof that spacetime is continuous - in fact what is 
> > the proof there is such a thing as spacetime?
> > 
> > 
> > Actually Einstein wrote: "reality cannot at all be represented by a 
> > continuous field." (The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Science Library, 
> > 1988, p. 160). In a letter to Hans Walter Dällenbach (1916) Einstein also 
> > wrote: “But you have correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum 
> > brings. If the molecular view of matter is the correct (appropriate) one, 
> > i.e., if a part of the universe is to be represented by a finite number of 
> > moving points, then the continuum of the present theory contains too great 
> > a manifold of possibilities. I also believe that this too great is 
> > responsible for the fact that our present means of description miscarry 
> > with the quantum theory. The problem seems to me how one can formulate 
> > statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum 
> > (space-time) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a 
> > supplementary construction not justified by the essence of the problem, 
> > which corresponds to nothing “real”. But we still lack the mathematical 
> > structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this 
> > way!”.
> > 
> > See also http://holometer.fnal.gov/
> 
> --
> 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.

-- 
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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2017-12-27 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

Brent wrote:
A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of computationalism have 
actually been derived.  I think most of them are aspirational.  For example, 
what is the proof that spacetime is continuous - in fact what is the proof 
there is such a thing as spacetime?

Actually Einstein wrote: "reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous 
field." (The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Science Library, 1988, p. 160). 
In a letter to Hans Walter Dällenbach (1916) Einstein also wrote: “But you have 
correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum brings. If the molecular view 
of matter is the correct (appropriate) one, i.e., if a part of the universe is 
to be represented by a finite number of moving points, then the continuum of 
the present theory contains too great a manifold of possibilities. I also 
believe that this too great is responsible for the fact that our present means 
of description miscarry with the quantum theory. The problem seems to me how 
one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a 
continuum (space-time) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory 
as a supplementary construction not justified by the essence of the problem, 
which corresponds to nothing “real”. But we still lack the mathematical 
structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way!”. 

See also http://holometer.fnal.gov/

-- 
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

2017-12-05 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Do you not understand that one of the enduring mysteries of quantum theory is 
the emergence of the classical world from the purely quantum substrate? 
Decoherence goes a long way towards answering the underlying problems, but 
unless something intervenes to exactly zero the off-diagonal terms in the 
density matrix, the the understanding that we have is still only FAPP. But the 
emphasis here is on Practical, rabbiting on about the multiverse is not in the 
least practical, here or anywhere else.

Bruce

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 Assays
 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 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

2017-12-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Weinberg looked into nonlinear QM, and it went nowhere. The linearity of QM is 
one thing that makes it so bizarre. If you make QM nonlinear you tend to make 
it obey Bell inequalities. 

LC

---
 
N. Gisin, Weinberg Non-linear Quantum-mechanics and Supraluminal 
Communications, Phys. Letters (1990)


http://www.unige.ch/gap/quantum/publications:bib:gisin1990 (pdf downloadable)

-- 
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

2017-12-01 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
BTW, how is this [1] [2] intensionality, or contextuality, or wholeness, or 
undecidibility, or whatever - and related difficulties regarding the existence 
of "elements of reality" [3] - understandable within (postulates of) Quantum 
Mechanics (and especially within ontological interpretations like MWI)?

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0921

[2] http://www.math.zju.edu.cn/wjd/notespapers/3-2.pdf

[3] “”if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty 
(i.e., a probability equal to unity) the value of a
physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality 
corresponding to this physical quantity.” ---EPR

-- 
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

2017-11-29 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping 
gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s 
“delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single 
particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles. Whether 
these two particles are entangled or separable has been decided after they have 
been measured. If one views the quantum state as a real physical object, one 
could get the seemingly paradoxical situation that future actions appear as 
having an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, 
there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as to be no more than a 
“catalogue of our knowledge”. Then the state is a probability list for all 
possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three 
observer’s events is irrelevant and no
physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the 
past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping. What, 
however, is important is to relate the lists of Alice, Bob and Victor’s 
measurement results. On the basis of Victor’s measurement settings and results, 
Alice and Bob can group their earlier and locally totally random results into 
subsets which each have a different meaning and interpretation. This formation 
of subsets is independent of the temporal order of the measurements. According 
to Wheeler, Bohr said: 'No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a 
registered phenomenon.'
We would like to extend this by saying: 'Some registered phenomena do not have 
a meaning unless they are put in relationship with other registered phenomena.' 
"

-- Zeilinger et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

It seems to me that ontic interpretations of quantum states, *if* future 
measurements appear as having an influence on past and already irrevocably 
recorded events, are untenable. Now the MWI is, for sure, an 'ontic' 
interpretation (an ontic theory if you prefer). How can we explain, within MWI, 
in 'ontic' terms,  that future actions appear as having an influence on past 
and already irrevocably recorded events? Is it possible that in MWI is both a 
real physical object and a “catalogue of our knowledge”?

-- 
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.


R: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-11-15 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

>> And "recorded" may not bring the right picture to mind.  It is 

[Bruce, I guess]
>True. The loss of interference due to radiation of IR photons from 
>buckeyballs means that information does not have to be 'recorded' in a 
>concrete sense -- it just has to be available somewhere, even if 
>recovery is not practicable.

"The superposition of amplitudes is only valid if there is no way to know, 
even in
principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this 
does not
imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient 
to destroy
the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle 
from the
experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any 
technical
possibility to be recovered, but in principle 'still out there'."
--Anton Zeilinger, (Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, p. S-288)

-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

2017-08-15 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List




Spudboy100:
One consciousness, yourself, of with everyone else, spanning other Everett 
Universes?

 
  Normal
  0
  
  
  14
  
  
  false
  false
  false
  
  IT
  X-NONE
  X-NONE
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 


 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabella normale";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}


 

 
  
 


"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, in Mind
and Matter, ch. 4, Oneness of Mind








-- 
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.


R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

2017-08-13 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical 
categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them. 
The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation of 
perceptual evidence in terms of reliable conceptual models of the world. What 
do you think 3p means?
 
 Bruce
 

BTW, Shan Gao just published this paper
https://www.academia.
edu/34156349/Failure_of_psychophysical_supervenience_in_Everetts_theory
'Failure of psychophysical superveniencein Everett’s theory'
(abstract) Psychophysical supervenience requires that the mental propertiesof 
a system cannot change without the change of its physical properties.For a 
system with many minds, the principle requires that the men-tal properties of 
each mind of the system cannot change without thechange of the physical 
properties of the system. In this paper, I arguethat Everett’s theory seems to 
violate this principle of psychophysicalsupervenience. The violation results 
from the three key assumptionsof the theory: (1) the completeness of the 
physical description by thewave function, (2) the linearity of the dynamics for 
the wave func-tion, and (3) multiplicity. For a post-measurement state with 
twodecoherent result branches, multiplicity means that each result 
branchcorresponds to a mindful observer, whose mental properties superveneon 
the branch, and in particular, whose mental content contains a def-inite record 
corresponding to the result branch. Under certain unitaryevolution which swaps 
the two result branches, the post-measurementstate does not change, and the 
completeness of the physical descriptionby the wave function then means that 
the physical state of the com-posite system does not change. While the 
linearity of the dynamicsfor the wave function requires that each result branch 
changes, andcorrespondingly the mental properties of the observer which 
superveneon the branch also change. Thus the principle of psychophysical su-
pervenience as defined above is violated by Everett’s theory.

I did not read it but, maybe, it is about "identity" and "x-person" 





-- 
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.


R: Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

2017-07-07 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

Just 2 (old) references

On quantum-mechanical automata
-David Z. Albert
Physics Letters A
Volume 98, Issues 5–6, 24 October 1983, Pages 249-252
Abstract
An automaton whose states are solutions of quantum-mechanical equations of 
motion is described, and the capacities of such an automaton to “measure” and 
to “know” and to “predict” certain physical properties of the world are 
considered. It is inquired what sort of empirical description such an automaton 
would produce of itself. It turns out that this description would be a very 
novel one, such as was never imagined in conventional theories of measurement.

On quantum-mechanical automata
-Asher Peres
Physics Letters A
Volume 101, Issues 5–6, 2 April 1984, Pages 249-250
Abstract
An automaton which can “measure” or “know” or “predict” the values of physical 
quantities cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

-- 
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.


R: Re: What are atheists for?

2017-04-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



 
"Quentin Anciaux":

How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? 
You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contradictory. 

# David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" (and 
also about "introspective measurements")

streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/68/035.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 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.


(link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

2017-01-21 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/120/the-crisis-of-the-multiverse




-- 
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.


R: Re: The Weirdening

2016-12-30 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List






John Mikes:
KIM (and Brent, Telmo of course) what should we call  " W E I R D "  ???

 
  Normal
  0
  
  
  14
  
  
  false
  false
  false
  
  IT
  X-NONE
  X-NONE
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 


st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }



 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabella normale";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}


 

 
  
 

"We (that
indivisible divinity that operates within us) 

have dreamed the world. We have dreamed it as enduring, 

mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and stable in time; 

but we have consented to tenuous and eternal intervals

of illogicalness in its architecture that we might know 

it is false."

- J.L.Borges, 'Avatares de la
 Tortuga'



-- 
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.


R: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

2016-12-13 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Brent:
>That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at length, 
>language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal 
>person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be 
>worshipped.  You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to 
>a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain 
>popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common 
>with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense.

BTW, Freeman Dyson writes: 'My favorite version of the multiverse is a story 
told by the philosopher Olaf Stapledon, who died in 1950. He taught philosophy 
at the University of Liverpool. In 1937 he published a novel, Star Maker, 
describing his vision of the multiverse. The book was marketed as science 
fiction, but it has more to do with theology than with science. The narrator 
has a vision in which he travels through space visiting alien civilizations 
from the past and the future, his mind merging telepathically with some of 
their inhabitants who join him on his journey. Finally, this “cosmical mind” 
encounters the Star Maker, an “eternal and absolute spirit” who has created all 
of these worlds in a succession of experiments. Each experiment is a universe, 
and as each experiment fails he learns how to design the next experiment a 
little better. His first experiment is a simple piece of music, a rhythmic 
drumbeat exploring the texture of time. After that come many more works of art, 
exploring the possibilities of space and time with gradually increasing 
complexity.' 
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/08/what-can-you-really-know/

-- 
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.


R: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

2016-09-04 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List





Messaggio originale

Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com

Data: 05/09/2016 0.52

A: "Everything List"

Cc: 

Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose





On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:




Messaggio originale

Da: "Alan Grayson" 

Data: 30/08/2016 18.23

A: "Everything List"

Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem 
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
FWIW, I just meant that no possible signalling (due to the random nature of the 
measurements) does not, IMO, mean we don't have FTL transmission of 
information. I read Bruce's comment to imply otherwise, perhaps mistakenly. AG
### I do not remember Bruce's comment. I think FTL information between two 
observers and FTL information (or "influences") between entangled pairs are 
different things. But there is another problem: is space-time independent of 
entanglement? 
### Hi Alan, read also
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795






-- 

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.





-- 
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.


R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

2016-09-04 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List





Messaggio originale

Da: "Alan Grayson" 

Data: 30/08/2016 18.23

A: "Everything List"

Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem 
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
### Hi Alan, read also
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795

-- 
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.


identity

2016-08-18 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
it is just a link to a webpage, detailed enough

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nuc/identity_map/

see also

http://immortality-roadmap.com/identityeng8.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 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.


R: Re: If you win the lottery, don't expect to live the rest of your life as a millionaire

2016-08-04 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Bruce Kellett" 
>Data: 04/08/2016 4.13
>A: 
>Ogg: Re: If you win the lottery, dont expect to live the rest of your 
life as a millionaire
>
>On 4/08/2016 11:59 am, smitra wrote:
>> On 04-08-2016 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On 4/08/2016 9:30 am, smitra wrote:
 On 04-08-2016 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 8/3/2016 4:09 PM, smitra wrote:
>
>> On 04-08-2016 00:12, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>> Only if you wake up and find out winning the lottery was a
>>> mistake,
>>> which seems less likely than waking up a winner. Waking up as one
>>> of
>>> the many copies who didn't win is not one of the options - those
>>> copies are not continuations of the you who won the lottery.
>>
>> I'm imagining waking up after a night of heavy drinking with
>> memories gradually returning. Now, you can, of course, condition
>> everything on the person who will find that he won the lottery. But
>> making that a hard part of my identity doesn't make sense to me,
>> otherwise you could not be the same person and forget about it, or
>> consider being the same person who participated in the lottery who
>> then went on to win it.
>>
>> Now,while this boils down to an arbitrary definition of personal
>> identity, we should be consistent about this; you can be the same
>> person as the won who had not yet won it, and you could imagine
>> being a person who did not win it, then you'll likely end up waking
>> up as a copy in another branch who did not win it.
>
>  That seems to invoke a dualism, such that there's only one real "you"
> who may be in different branches at different times.  I'd say that if
> "you" wake up as a copy in another branch where "you" didn't win, it's
> because "you" didn't win.  It's the same as saying the man who sees
> Moscow didn't "wake up" as the man who sees Washington.
>
>  Brent

 We can turn this into a reverse Bruno-like problem. If your memory 
 is temporarily cleared then copies of different branches merge. The 
 branches will of course be different, but you without a memory of 
 having won in the branch where you did win is the same you as the 
 you in another branch were you did not win where you also have 
 forgotten about not winning.
>>>
>>> Actually, there will objective evidence as to whether or not you have
>>> won the lottery. There will be a winning number and you will have a
>>> ticket that will have this number on it or not, regardless of whether
>>> you forget anything or not. The idea that branches in the MWI can
>>> recombine after the relevant quantum measurement has been irreversibly
>>> recorded is nonsense.
>>
>> There is no recombination of branches here, it's just that you become 
>> identical to another version of you located in another branch. Then, 
>> upon a new measurement, you'll spit over the different branches again. 
>> If somehow you would not be identical to another copy of you located 
>> on a branch where the outcome of the lottery is different, then that 
>> means that you actually did not forget the outcome as the information 
>> about the outcome is still present in your memory (the algorithm that 
>> defines you).
>
>Forgetting does not involve  complete reversal of a particular brain 
>state, so there will always be traces of the facts that you once knew, 
>but have recently forgotten -- the memories might come flooding back. I 
>don't think the subconscious mind is as simple as you seem to presume. 
>While you were forgetting, the other branches of the wave funtion have 
>evolved away in different diretions, so it is extremely unlikey that 
>there will be another copy identical to you post-forgetting state. If 
>you do another measurement, there is another branching -- you never go 
>back to an earlier state. Decoherence is irreversible.
>
>Bruce

But, are there differences between "Many Minds I." and "Many Worlds I."?
It seems so.
http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/Many_Minds.pdf
http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/Many_Minds_Replies.pdf

Each interpretation has problems (preferred basis, decoherence, recoherence,
Born rule, etc.). I think here we are somehow mixing the two interpretation 


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 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.


R: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise

2016-08-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net>
>Data: 03/08/2016 8.49
>A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>Ogg: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise
>
>
>
>On 8/2/2016 11:37 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>>
>>   
>> The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one 
physical
>> body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that 
consciousness
>> is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for 
instance.
>> Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental but derivative on 
consciousness.
>> Bruce
>>
>> This reminds me of Schroedinger. “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 even experienced 
more
>> than one consciousness, but there is no trace of circumstantial evidence of
>> this even happening anywhere in the world” (much more in "What is Life?")
>
>But the question isn't whether the Helsinki man experiences two 
>consciousnesses, it's whether he experiences one consciousness of two 
>locations.  You can already be conscious of two locations via 
>television; it's just that your consciousness of one of the places is 
>very limited because you get only visual perception of it and you can't 
>act on it.
>
>Brent

Yes. I remember that, long time ago, David Finkelstein was also interested in 
"introspective" systems. "There is, to be sure, a genuine problem in the 
phenomenon of quantum measurement, but I will not discuss it here. It concerns 
introspective systems, where subject = object so that the basic conception of a 
single subject observing an ensemble of objects must be modified." -- David 
Finkelstein in "The Physics of Logic" (in "Paradigms and Paradoxes", ed. R. G. 
Colodny, 1971, Un. Pittsburgh, p. 60) . I wrote a short email and he responded. 
"Weizsäcker proposed in conversation that in fact the observer divides into two 
parts on such occasions, and then one observes the other as usual. When the 
observer is outside the system, the measurement is represented by a time-
dependent interaction Hamiltonian. This would not make sense for self-
observation, but one can imagine a self-interaction governed by an internal 
parameter instead of time." I'm writing that because to me consciousness may 
have something to do with "introspective" systems.

-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise

2016-08-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
>> The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one 
physical
>> body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that 
consciousness
>> is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for 
instance.
>> Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental but derivative on 
consciousness.
>> Bruce
>>
>> This reminds me of Schroedinger. “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 even experienced 
more
>> than one consciousness, but there is no trace of circumstantial evidence of
>> this even happening anywhere in the world” (much more in "What is Life?")

>I don't think Schrödinger was considering person duplicating machines. 
>He is using the normal transitive understanding of identity, which is 
>also under question in the duplication protocol.
>Bruce


Yes. Surprisingly Schroedinger had his own many-minds interpretation (quantum 
measurement). But he was mainly interested in the "oneness of mind" and in the 
"oneness of world".
 
"The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. 
Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to 
have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for 
this barrier does not exist."  

"The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience 
that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is 
only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of 
different aspects of this one thing…"

https://theworldknot.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/erwin-schrodinger-on-
consciousness/

-- 
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.


R: Re: Holiday Exercise

2016-08-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



 
The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one physical 
body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that consciousness 
is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for instance. 
Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental but derivative on consciousness.
Bruce

This reminds me of Schroedinger. “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 even experienced more 
than one consciousness, but there is no trace of circumstantial evidence of 
this even happening anywhere in the world” (much more in "What is Life?")

 



-- 
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.


R: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

2016-07-13 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List





  
  

I've been close friends with two mathematicians.  The both say,
  "I'm a Platonist Monday thru Friday.  On the weekend I'm a
  nominalist."
Brent


"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



-- 
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.


R: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit (an old quote)

2016-06-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
"In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things. 
Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge. 
Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion; 
without Things, there could be no reality. 
Thoughts and Things are so intimately combined in our Knowledge, 
that we do not look upon them as distinct." 

---William Whewell (1840)

-- 
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.


R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

2016-06-06 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List




Precisely. I think there is some degree of confusion around the
terms 'local' and 'non-local'. The wave function is non-local in
that it refers to the two separated particles as a single entity,
without specifying any particular interaction between them. This is
a simple consequence of the fact that the wave function resides in
configuration space, and any suggestion of a 'local mechanical'
connection between the remote particles is lost when we move back
into physical space in order to compare the quantum predictions
coming from the wave function to our experimental results.



When people ask for a 'local' explanation of anything, they are
thinking in terms of a 'mechanism', such as the exchange of 
particle that can carry information in a local way. If they think of
a 'non-local' interaction, they still think in this mechanistic way
by considering a faster-than-light tachyonic exchange that is
completely analagous to the subluminal particle exchange
characteristic of normal local interactions. Such thinking is
inapplicable to the wave function in quantum mechanics. When the
wave function is describing two or more particles, it is
intrinsically non-local in that in certain circumstances the wave
function describes a single state, even though its parts might be
widely separated in space. This form of intrinsic non-locality does
not have any 'mechanism' underlying it -- there is no subluminal or
superluminal particle exchange going on in the background to hold
the dispersed state together! The non-locality is intrinsic: it
cannot be reduced to some local mechanistic account.



Bruce
### Yuval Ne'eman suggested a fibre bundle "embedding" of EPR non-locality, in 
this paper 
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/27/026/27026800.pdf
its a sort of geometrical solution. 
Btw it seems that also Zeilinger is suggesting a solution in terms of a 
re-definition of space-time.




"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.” 
A.Zeilinger










  



-- 
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.


Wigner (1970) on hidden variables and Bell's theorem

2016-06-04 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

Just an interesting paper by Wigner on hidden variables and Bell's theorem
(of course the paper is well known but it is not so easy to find it).

'On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities' 

Wigner, Eugene P. 

American Journal of Physics, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp. 1005-1009 (1970) 


http://dropcanvas.com/#qBYMyi9b4hcDra

--
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.


R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

2016-06-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of 
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH). Consider the 
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws of physics 
can be simulated to any desired precision by a Turing machine (or at any rate, 
by a probabilistic Turing machine)". This is not true for Bell-type experiments 
on entangled particle pairs. To be more precise, the correlations produced from 
measurements on entangled pairs at spacelike separations cannot be reproduced 
by any computational process. []

### Unless something strange is going on here. In example, I'm trying to 
understand something J.Christian wrote recently.. See Appendix D, page 8 and 9 
in this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393v6.pdf

BTW L. Accardi, (Accardi and Regoli, 2000, 2001; Accardi, Imafuku and Regoli, 
2002) has claimed to have produced a suite of computer programmes, to be run on 
a network of computers, which will simulate a violation of Bell's inequalites. 
See also http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106v3.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 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.


R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-12 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


BruceK and Smitra,my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned 
math  phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh 
in my 1/2 c. of a successful RD activity in specialty polymers. Since then 
(1987), however, I became an agnostic. What reverberates now is that Everett 
called MWI a bunch of IDENTICAL universes. In my agnostic view "MY" MWI 
consists of possibly no two identical universes, ours being one pretty 
simpleminded system - we know it only from the inside. We have no access to the 
others. 
John Mikes Ph.D. (chem-phys-math 1948)
-
'The ‘many world interpretation seems to me an extravagant, andabove all an 
extravagantly vague, hypothesis. I could almostdismiss it as silly. And yet... 
It may have something distinctiveto say in connection to ‘Einstein Podolsky 
Rosen puzzle’, and itwould be worthwhile, I think, to formulate some precise 
versionof it to see if it really so. And the existence of all possibleworlds 
may make us more comfortable about existence of ourown world... which seems to 
be in some ways a highly improbableone." (John Bell, 1986)



-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-11 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) 
should violate the locality condition.
I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I am 
interested. As I explained, and also give references, it seems to me that the 
MWI restores both 3p determinacy and 3p locality, making both the indeterminacy 
and non-locality only first person plural phenomenological happening. That is 
also Everett's position, and I would say the position of most Everettian (I 
still don't find any Everettian claiming that the MWI remains non-local, except 
the beginners who often think at first that the entire universe split 
instantaneously, but this does not deserve to be commented as nobody believes 
in this anymore).
Bruno
 Jarrett, but also Shimony, and also Ghirardi, gave the proof that a 
*deterministic* QM (I should say a *deterministic and single-valued* QM) must 
violate the Locality Condition. I do not have references at hand, right now. 
I'll write down something as soon as possible.
 I did not re-read it, but a paper (about differences between 
non-separability, non-locality, determinism, etc.) could  be this one 
http://dropcanvas.com/#n9m72p90WEc54O (I hope the link works)



 


-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-11 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Bruce:

I came across the following brief statement by Goldstein et al:
Many-worlds and relational interpretations of quantum theory

[etc.]

# Adrian Kent writes: "Making scientific sense of Everett’s idea is difficult, 
as evidenced by the many and generally incompatible attempts to show how 
unitary quantum theory explains the appearance of
a quasiclassical world and the apparent validity of the Born rule and 
Copenhagen quantum theory, and evidenced also
by the problems with all of these attempts. There is still nothing close to a 
consensus on the
most promising way forward, even among many-worlds enthusiasts. This adds 
motivation for developing alternative
ways of formulating quantum theory that have the purported advantages of 
many-worlds ideas — realism,
and Lorentz invariance — but describe a single real world, so avoiding both the 
conceptual problems and the fantastic
nature of many-worlds ideas. Still, for many, the appeal of many-worlds ideas 
evidently persists."
in http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1944 "Does it Make Sense to Speak of Self-Locating 
Uncertainty in the Universal Wave
Function?"

see also http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624

and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9703089




-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
.
I think we all agree that QM-with-collapse entails a violation of Locality. The 
debate was for the case of the non-single value QM, that is 
QM-without-collapse, where all branches of the wave are kept "alive".
Bruno

As somebody wrote "Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality; 
emphasis on its time aspect can be worded atemporality." (Olivier Costa de 
Beauregard).
And yes, in QM without collapse (without reduction of probability packet), all 
branches are kept alive (with some probability or weight attached to each 
world; with a conservation of energy not well defined in each world or, better, 
during each split; and with a strange concept of locality - because there are 
"many" decohering "worlds").
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 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.


R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List





Messaggio originale

Da: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

Data: 10/05/2016 18.31

A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Ogg: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)




On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and 
most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a 
distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non-separability).
What I look for would be a paper which would show that in the MWI there are 
action-at-a-distance, like Bruce and John C claim.
I might comment later, as I am late in my scheduling, but will just notice that 
Gisin's paper (mentionned by Brent) use the non-compatibilist theory of 
free-will, which makes no-sense to a mechanist. I think Brent concluded 
similarly.
Bruno



If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be 
measured in A
and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its 
possible value,
and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write

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)
There is (was) some agreement that a (phantomatic) deterministic theory (i.e. 
one in which the range of any probability distribution of outcomes is the set: 
0 or 1)


?
The question is: are the probabilities, or the indeterminacies, and the non 
locality,   phenomenological (1p)  or factual (ontological, real, 3p)?
QM+collapse admit factual indeterminacies  (God plays dice, and there are 
action at a distance, even if they cannot be used to transmit signal quicker 
than light).
QM-without-collapse is purely deterministic at the 3p level, and admits 
indeterminacies at the phenomenological level. 
I think everyone agree on this.
The debate is on the following question: does QM-without-collapse admit factual 
non-locality (real physical action at a distance, like QM-with-collapse), or do 
the non-locality becomes, like the indeterminacy, phenomenological? (I think 
yes, as Jesse, Saibal and others, but it seems Bruce and John C. differ on 
this).
 Frankly it is not easy for me to say anything about that, at least 
something consistent. Mainly because "Many-worlds with its multiplicity of 
results in different worlds violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local. 
Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the standard 
predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment.". 


reproducing all the predictions of QM, can not violate the
Separability Condition, (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
just take the values 0 or 1) and must violate the Locality
Condition.
Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) 
should violate the locality condition.
I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I am 
interested. As I explained, and also give references, it seems to me that the 
MWI restores both 3p determinacy and 3p locality, making both the indeterminacy 
and non-locality only first person plural phenomenological happening. That is 
also Everett's position, and I would say the position of most Everettian (I 
still don't find any Everettian claiming that the MWI remains non-local, except 
the beginners who often think at first that the entire universe split 
instantaneously, but this does not deserve to be commented as nobody believes 
in this anymore).
Bruno
 Jarrett, but also Shimony, and also Ghirardi, gave the proof that a 
*deterministic* QM (I should say a *deterministic and single-valued* QM) must 
violate the Locality Condition. I do not have references at hand, right now. 
I'll write down something as soon as possible.



 
 -- 
 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.

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 





-- 

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:

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


scerir wrote:

If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be 
measured in A
and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its 
possible value,
and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write
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)
There is (or was) some agreement that a (phantomatic) 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, can not violate the
Separability Condition, (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
just take the values 0 or 1) and must violate the Locality
Condition.
Following the above reasoning, MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) 
should violate the Locality Condition.
 ---
### Since the Everett faq gives the following .
"To recap.  Many-worlds is local and deterministic.  Local measurements split 
local systems (including observers) in a subjectively random fashion; distant 
systems are only split when the causally transmitted effects of the local 
interactions reach them.  We have not assumed any non-local FTL effects, yet we 
have reproduced the standard predictions of QM. So where did Bell and Eberhard 
go wrong?  They thought that all theories that reproduced the standard 
predictions must be non-local.  It has been pointed out by both Albert [A] and 
Cramer [C] (who both support different interpretations of QM) that Bell and 
Eberhard had implicity assumed that every possible measurement - even if not 
performed - would have yielded a single definite result.  This assumption is 
called contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S].  What Bell and Eberhard really 
proved was that every quantum theory must either violate locality or CFD.  
Many-worlds with its multiplicity of results in different worlds violates CFD, 
of course, and thus can be local."
So, I should say that . MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory, 
reproducing all thepredictions of QM) should violate the Locality Condition 
but, in fact, it violates CFD only :-).












-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and 
most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a 
distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non-separability).
What I look for would be a paper which would show that in the MWI there are 
action-at-a-distance, like Bruce and John C claim.
I might comment later, as I am late in my scheduling, but will just notice that 
Gisin's paper (mentionned by Brent) use the non-compatibilist theory of 
free-will, which makes no-sense to a mechanist. I think Brent concluded 
similarly.
Bruno



If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be 
measured in A
and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its 
possible value,
and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write

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)
There is (was) some agreement that a (phantomatic) 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, can not violate the
Separability Condition, (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
just take the values 0 or 1) and must violate the Locality
Condition.
Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) 
should violate the locality condition.
 

-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List



### W. Myrvold wrote something here 
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see
  ch. 0.8)
  

  





It seems that he is saying that 'action-at-a-distance' is something
that would violate the 'no-signalling theorem' of quantum mechanics.
So he sees experimental violation of the Bell inequalities as
evidence for non-locality, but not necessarily evidence for
action-at-a-distance in the above sense. I would agree with his
conclusion that both collapse and Everettian theories are like this
-- non-local, but also non-signalling at spacelike separations.



Bruce

  






### Yes, It seems so. There is - in general - some confusion between 
'nonlocality' and 'nonseparability'. Not to mention also 'action-at-a-distance' 
and 'locality of measurement' and "local causality" and so on. Myrvold et al. 
wrote something else here 
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4222/1/everett_and_evidence_21aug08.pdf 
(general objections to Everettism).
"Now it is precisely in cleaning up intuitive ideas for mathematics that one is 
likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater."
J.S. Bell (quoted here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3724.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 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.


R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-05-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


Bruno (I suppose) wrote:

But in the MWI, some work needs to be done (at least) to
  convince me. I don't even find a paper on the subject, only
  paper which shows that MWI is local (some more rigorous than
  other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's
  inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would
  like to take a look on it, if it exists.
### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see 
ch. 0.8)
  





-- 
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.


R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-09 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List





Messaggio originale

Da: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>

Data: 09/05/2016 18.50

A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI




  
  




On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via
  Everything List wrote:



  Saibal Mitra:


  
And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are 
already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not 
either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has 
become entangled with the environment, but both branches are relevant 
until you get to know the result. 

  
  It seems (to me) interesting this quote from Nicolas Gisin "Against Many-
Worlds", 
ch. 4 of the paper ' Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds" ' 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3440.pdf

"On the contrary, I do not see any explanatory power in the many worlds: it 
seems
to be made just to prevent one from asking (possibly provocative) questions. 
Moreover, it has built in it the impossibility of any test: all its 
predictions are identical
to those of quantum theory. For me, it looks like "cushion for laziness" 
(un coussin de paresse in French). 



It avoids the otherwise puzzling question of, "When does the wave
function collapse?  Why is a measurement different from other
physical interactions?"  QBism provides one answer, but at the cost
of losing a kind of absolute objectivity.  Other solutions, like
Bohm and GRW, postulate truly different physics that produce
collapse.
 Yes. And I was not aware of the MIW interpretation !"In the Everett or MW 
interpretation, the `worlds' are
orthogonal components of a universal wave function .
The particular decomposition at any time, and the identity
of worlds through time is argued to be defined (at
least well-enough for practical purposes) by the quantum
dynamics which generates essentially independent
evolution of these quasiclassical worlds into the future
(a phenomenon called effective decoherence). The inherent
fuzziness of Everettian worlds is in contrast to
the corresponding concepts in the MIW [Many Interacting classical Worlds] 
approach, of a
well-defined group of deterministically-evolving configurations.
In the MW interpretation it is meaningless to ask
exactly how many worlds there are at a given time, or exactly
when a branching event into subcomponents occurs,
leading to criticisms that there is no precise ontology Another di ffcult issue 
is that worlds are not equally
`real' in the MW interpretation, but are `weighted' by
the modulus squared of the corresponding superposition
coeffi cients. As noted above, in the MIW approach all
worlds are equally weighted, so that Laplace's theory of
probability is su fficient to account for our experience and
expectations." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6144v4.pdf




  And there is a second, decisive, reason to 
reject 
the many-worlds view: it leaves no space for free will."



That's a silly reason.  Daniel Dennett, in his book Elbow Room,
explains that even Laplacian determinism leaves us all the free will
worth having.



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.

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.





-- 
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.


  1   2   >