Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 8:43:43 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:16:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Although the other universe is only slightly different from ours and only >> exists for a short time before it merges back into ours I think we do have >> access to another universe every time we

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:33:58 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: > >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >> >>> On

Re: Measurements in QM

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

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:33:58 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: > >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Measurements in QM

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

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 3:40:19 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2018 5:57 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:40:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/28/2018 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:59:27

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 6:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:16:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: From: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 5:57 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:40:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:59:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 4:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:44:20 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > 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 > I have two questions, on a personal note and curiosity. 1)

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:16:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly >> >

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:40:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2018 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:59:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/28/2018 4:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 5:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:59:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 4:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: From:

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:59:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2018 4:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: > >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC,

Re: Measurements in QM

From: *John Clark* > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Bruce Kellett >wrote: / ​ > ​ Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger evolution is unitary only with

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > *​> ​Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger evolution is unitary > only with MWI.* > The only irreversible part is the wave collapse, but the Schrodinger wave equation says nothing about anything

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 4:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: From:

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ > There are interactions that, if you did not arrange that they be erased, > would constitute measurements. Whether you say they were measurements and > then got erased or they are not measurments because they

Re: Measurements in QM

From: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: From:

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM,

Re: Measurements in QM

From: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 4:06 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it a settled issue

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly >> > irreversible, >>

Re: Measurements in QM

From: > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly > irreversible, There are interactions

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly > > irreversible, > > There are interactions that, if you did not arrange that they be erased, > would

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 10:44 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/34 http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/site/siteArticle.asp?ar=206 Thanks for posting that.  Elitzur addresses some of the questions I was pondering. Brent

Re: Measurements in QM

On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly irreversible, There are interactions that, if you did not arrange that they be erased, would constitute measurements.  Whether you say they were measurements and then got

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:44:20 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > 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 > *A long, long time ago, on a galaxy far, far away, Bruce gave a

Re: Measurements in QM

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 >