Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20/11/2017 11:42 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 at 8:35 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> * ​> ​ I think "must" is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: ​> ​ I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18 Nov 2017, at 05:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 at 8:35 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> And exactly what is it that you claim

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/19/2017 6:57 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 8:33:31 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: If the physics

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 8:33:31 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:10:56 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> > ​>> ​ >>> The MWI people don't have to assume anything because >>> ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t >>> he Schrodinger >>> ​Wave

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:21:36 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM, > wrote: > > *​> ​Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name >> indicates, based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/19/2017 10:10 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: ​>> ​ The MWI people don't have to assume anything because ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t he Schrodinger

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM, wrote: *​> ​Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name indicates, > based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be measured, in > this case in other worlds. I reject this hypothesis. What I do concede is >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​>> ​ >> The MWI people don't have to assume anything because >> ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t >> he Schrodinger >> ​Wave ​E >> quation >> ​ about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

*Interesting post. TY. I think the argument about whether mathematics or physics better represents "real" knowledge is fruitless to pursue. I do know that mathematical theorems, once proved, are set in stone. OTOH, physical theories evolve over time, and without mathematics the huge progress

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is > astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you > have agree to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: And exactly what is it that you claim has not been proved in MW theory? Bell's theorem applies there too: it has never

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:51:57 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: > > * ​> ​ I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. >> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some >> world. ​ ​ **I see no reason

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *Not sure of the distinction

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: * ​> ​ I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. ​ ​ **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, wrote: > *​> ​How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster than light and the future can't effect the past.​ ​Realism means a property of something exists in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/14/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" > in the context of the singlet state. * > > > A local operator would be one that interacts

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet state. * A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18/11/2017 4:05 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/17/2017 8:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: No, Bruce was thinking of what /*local */operator could be implemented. In theory any pure state can be an element of a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 8:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I think "must" is unwarranted,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 4:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 10:43 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18/11/2017 10:43 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, > it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. I see > no reason for

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 15/11/2017 12:47 am,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

. Meanwhile, trade and tourism go on. -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 17, 2017 4:38 pm Subject: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to fully reify the wf in order to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:17:37 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 11:30:04 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:57 AM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I didn't mean to imply that all atoms in a baseball have

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 11:30:04 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:57 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I didn't mean to imply that all atoms in a baseball have the same >> entangled state. >> > > ​Then a baseball is not in one ​ > definite state >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16-11-2017 07:32, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 10:23 PM, smitra wrote: No time to find the right branch in this thread. Briefly the point I'm making is not really conditional on the details of quantum mechanics or the MWI, except that I'm assuming multiple worlds. The point is that

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:57 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > I didn't mean to imply that all atoms in a baseball have the same > entangled state. > ​Then a baseball is not in one ​ definite state ​​. ​> > I just meant that whatever state it's in, it's not in contradiction with >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think you

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 5:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 9:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: That is because we're considering an SG

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:00:22 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:17 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Any macro object is in a definite state >> > > ​That is incorrect. An electron an be in a single quantum state with just > one associated wave

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 16:33, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:00:22 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:17 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Any macro object is in a definite state >> > > ​That is incorrect. An electron an be in a single quantum state with just > one associated wave

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 10:23 PM, smitra wrote: No time to find the right branch in this thread. Briefly the point I'm making is not really conditional on the details of quantum mechanics or the MWI, except that I'm assuming multiple worlds. The point is that in any parallel universes situation where

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

No time to find the right branch in this thread. Briefly the point I'm making is not really conditional on the details of quantum mechanics or the MWI, except that I'm assuming multiple worlds. The point is that in any parallel universes situation where I exist an I have a lot of hair on my

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 9:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: That is because we're considering an SG experiment, with an SG experimenter. That breaks

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: In the first place, it is unlikely that all possible outcomes of an experiment are equally likely. But I think you are confusing symmetry breaking with the observer self-locating in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: That is because we're considering an SG experiment, with an SG experimenter. That breaks the symmetry. The environment breaks the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: The choice between circularly polarised filter and linear polarised filters is binary. Obviously, there follows the choice of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:19:50 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > But if it tunnels

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: but be that as it may, I can't see how it solves the preferred basis problem. Consider an

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: > > But not all measurements are measurements of the position of > > something. What about measuring the voltage of a circuit using an A->D > > converter? > > A surrogate measurement of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in > extent? I find that

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 1:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 6:52 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 3:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: but be that as it may, I can't see how it solves the preferred basis problem. Consider an experiment where the experimenter may choose

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I said "one of the strongest"! I know that you want to define QM from the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in > > extent? I find that egregiously hard to imagine, plus the fact that > > one has to use

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I said "one of the strongest"! I know that you want to define QM from the > > > idea of observer moments. I

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:17 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Any macro object is in a definite state > ​That is incorrect. An electron an be in a single quantum state with just one associated wave function, 2 electrons can do the sane thing in superconductors they're called "Cooper

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 6:52 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 3:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in extent? I find that egregiously hard to imagine, plus the fact that one has to use QM to explain the tunneling, and that, ipso facto, seems to imply it's infinitesimally

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have

Re: R: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 16/11/2017 12:35 am, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 12:55:18 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 07:33:12AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 07:33:12AM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Multiverse arose in the context of string theory, after Everett's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 3:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:44 am, smitra wrote: On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote: Within this model, Bob does not decohere until that time he is told what Alice has found. That is simply not true.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined. There is no collapse, many worlds is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: ​> ​I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of individual constituents, is in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14 Nov 2017, at 17:47, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:32 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On

R: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

>> 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of a conscious

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept > > > of > > > a conscious observer

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I disagree. The strongest argument is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the > concept of > > a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I think

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of > a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I disagree. The strongest argument is that it removes the need for a mysterious

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: ​> ​ I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 12:44 am, smitra wrote: On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote: Within this model, Bob does not decohere until that time he is told what Alice has found. That is simply not true. Decoherence is not subject to a particular person's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined. There is no collapse, many worlds is assumed

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 4:17:29 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: HOWEVER, if you prefer, forget about number theory and consider the FINITE AGE of our universe, the observable and unobservable regions. It's been expanding for 13.8 billion years, so its spatial extent must be FINITE. That only shows

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of >> individual constituents, is in one definite state; > > > ​No object large

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of > individual constituents, is in one definite state; ​No object large enough to see with ​ your unaided ​can is in one definite state, that is to say can

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >