date:20171212

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and 
>>> the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; 
>>
>>
>> *Unlike the double slit experiment, which can only be understood with 
>> interference and the model that the electron wave, say, goes through both 
>> slits, the nuclear decay is a BINARY event, very roughly like a coin toss 
>> where there is no interference. Generalizing interference to every quantum 
>> state is where Schrodinger went wrong. The cat, which shares or inherits 
>> the wf from the radioactive decay, is never in both Alive and Dead states 
>> simultaneously. AG*
>>
>>
>> In the double slit, the paths through the two slits remain coherent, so 
>> they can interfere when they come together. In the case of nuclear decay, 
>> the coherence is lost immediately, so the nucleus does not interfere with 
>> the decay products.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *So you agree or disagree with my conclusion; namely, the cat is never in 
> a superposition of states? That is, no situation where cat is Alive and 
> Dead simultaneously. I think you disagree and think the nuclear state is 
> superposed with interference existing. AG*
>
>
> The superposition of |live + dead> or |live - dead> does not exist in any 
> single world since such states are not stable against decoherence. But if 
> you take the pedantic view of the many worlds of MWI, the superposition of 
> live and dead cats, together with everything entangled with them, exists 
> for ever in the multiverse. What good that does anyone, I fail to 
> understand.
>
> Bruce
>

*I am not referring to the MWI. I am referring to whether in Schrodinger's 
cat experiment, the wf of the radioactive source, ( |decayed> + |undecayed> 
) , is a superposition of states without interference between its 
components. If that's the case, perhaps what you would call an "incoherent 
superposition", then the cat which shares or inherits this wf in 
Schrodinger's set up, is never in a state of Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
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.
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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:


So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a
box, and
the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; 



*Unlike the double slit experiment, which can only be understood
with interference and the model that the electron wave, say, goes
through both slits, the nuclear decay is a BINARY event, very
roughly like a coin toss where there is no interference.
Generalizing interference to every quantum state is where
Schrodinger went wrong. The cat, which shares or inherits the wf
from the radioactive decay, is never in both Alive and Dead
states simultaneously. AG*


In the double slit, the paths through the two slits remain
coherent, so they can interfere when they come together. In the
case of nuclear decay, the coherence is lost immediately, so the
nucleus does not interfere with the decay products.

Bruce


*So you agree or disagree with my conclusion; namely, the cat is never 
in a superposition of states? That is, no situation where cat is Alive 
and Dead simultaneously. I think you disagree and think the nuclear 
state is superposed with interference existing. AG*


The superposition of |live + dead> or |live - dead> does not exist in 
any single world since such states are not stable against decoherence. 
But if you take the pedantic view of the many worlds of MWI, the 
superposition of live and dead cats, together with everything entangled 
with them, exists for ever in the multiverse. What good that does 
anyone, I fail to understand.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Brent Meeker




On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote:


> 
He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that
everything that CAN happen, DOES happen.


I don't see how.


I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything 
possible actually happens.  "Possible" needs to be qualified.  For 
example the SWE in a Young's slit experiment tells you that the 
probability of a particle striking the detector is zero at some places.  
It's logically possible for a particle to strike there, but not 
nomologically possible.  Similary if you measure the value of a variable 
for a state you can only get values that are eigenvalues of the 
operator.  Others are logically possible, but not nomologically.


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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Brent Meeker




On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote:


>
I've been saying all along that a conscious observer is not needed
to create or destroy the interference


 I know you have. And I've been asking all along exactly what is it 
that collapses the wave function. If its not an observer and its not a 
measurement and its not consciousness then what is it?


It is interaction with something with lots degrees of freedom (like an 
instrument or the environment) so that there are many instances of the 
result recorded.  A measurement is one such event, but it doesn't have 
to be a measurement; compare the Bucky Ball Young's slits experiment.  
The interference is washed out when the interaction makes the welcher 
weg available even if it is inaccessible FAPP.


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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 2:21:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> 
> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, 
> is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur.
>
>
> >> 
> The
>  
> fundamental
>  
> assumption of the MWI is that the
>  
> Schrodinger 
> Wave
>  
> Equation
>  means what it says and says what it means. The 
> 
> fundamental
>  
> assumption
>  of Copenhagen is that 
> Schrodinger
>  forgot to put a "except" and a "however" into his equation.
>
>
> > 
> Solutions of the SWE give the probabilities of getting possible 
> measurement outcomes
>
>
> It's not the SWE itself that gives the probabilities, 
>

I know. That's why I wrote "solutions" of the SWE. AG
 

> you've got to 
> square of the absolute value of the wave
>  
> function
>  
> to find the probability 
> of 
> finding 
> a particle at 
> that
>  point
> . 
>

You mean Born's rule? Never heard of it. Wasn't covered in my graduate 
courses in QM. AG
 

> I'm not splitting hairs this is important because 
> the SWE contains
>  
> imaginary numbers (square root of -1) so 2 very different wave functions 
> can yield the exact same probability at a point when you square it. So even 
> if you know the probability you can't know the unique wave function that 
> produced it because there is no such unique function.
>

Maybe at discrete points, and even if not, why is this important? AG 

>
> > 
> prior to the measurement. If you want to give the equation a life after 
> measurement
>  [...]
>
>
> If you want to say the equation has no life after measurement then you're 
> going to have to explain exactly what a measurement is and what term in the 
> SWE it interacts with causing it to self destruct.
>

The measurement process, whatever its details are, is the same in MWI as in 
Copenhagen regardless of your denials. I can speculate what happens to the 
SWE after measurement, but more important I don't see why MWI implies MW, 
and you have NOT made that case. 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.
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

2017-12-12 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM,  wrote:

>
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the
>>> MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur.
>>>
>>
>> >> 
>> The
>>  
>> fundamental
>>  
>> assumption of the MWI is that the
>>  
>> Schrodinger
>> Wave
>>
>> Equation
>>  means what it says and says what it means. The 
>> 
>> fundamental
>>  
>> assumption
>>  of Copenhagen is that 
>> Schrodinger
>>  forgot to put a "except" and a "however" into his equation.
>>
>
> > 
> Solutions of the SWE give the probabilities of getting possible
> measurement outcomes
>

It's not the SWE itself that gives the probabilities, you've got to
square of the absolute value of the wave

function

to find the probability 
of
finding 
a particle at
that
 point
. I'm not splitting hairs this is important because
the SWE contains

imaginary numbers (square root of -1) so 2 very different wave functions
can yield the exact same probability at a point when you square it. So even
if you know the probability you can't know the unique wave function that
produced it because there is no such unique function.

> 
> prior to the measurement. If you want to give the equation a life after
> measurement
>  [...]
>

If you want to say the equation has no life after measurement then you're
going to have to explain exactly what a measurement is and what term in the
SWE it interacts with causing it to self destruct.  

> > 
> Do you know about Gleason's result which Brent mentioned.
>

Yes I mentioned it a few days ago.

Gleason's theorem
 says
that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of
the absolute value of 
Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can
yield a probability without inconsistencies
.

S
o the real question isn't why is the Born rule a square but why is it a
probability at all
? 
 And
Gleason's theorem
 is pure mathematics, Many Worlds give it a physical interpretation, the
best one I know of.

> > 
> He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that everything that
> CAN happen, DOES happen.
>

I don't see how.

> 
> The idea of general covariance as a principle for understanding the
> natural world is not in the least absurd. You seem to adopt a pov which
> reminds me of religious zealots, who defend poorly founded ideas by appeals
> to ignorance of God's behavior.
>

Both Bell's inequality and

the

Leggett–Garg inequality
 are violated, that is not a theory that is a experimental fact, so
quantum mechanics, or any successful theory that comes after it, is going
to have to incorporate that fact, and there is no way to do that without
being weird;  or to be more precise, without being grossly non-intuitive,
radically different from everyday experience, and at odds with common sense
(although not at odds with logic). 

>> >> 
>> Show me how to measure something without anybody doing any measuring and
>> show me the new term you added to the Schrodinger Equation that causes it
>> to collapse when a measurement is taken.
>>
>
> > 
> I've been saying all along that a conscious observer is not needed to
> create or destroy the interference
>

I know you have. And I've been asking all along exactly what is it that
collapses the wave function. If its not an observer and its not a
measurement and its not consciousness then what is it?  

> > 
> did MWI derive Born's rule, or did it simply argue for its plausibility?
>

I
wish I could say MWI derived it but that would be going too far, but it did
a much better job at

arguing
for its plausibility
 than Copenhagen.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>>
>> So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and 
>> the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; 
>
>
> *Unlike the double slit experiment, which can only be understood with 
> interference and the model that the electron wave, say, goes through both 
> slits, the nuclear decay is a BINARY event, very roughly like a coin toss 
> where there is no interference. Generalizing interference to every quantum 
> state is where Schrodinger went wrong. The cat, which shares or inherits 
> the wf from the radioactive decay, is never in both Alive and Dead states 
> simultaneously. AG*
>
>
> In the double slit, the paths through the two slits remain coherent, so 
> they can interfere when they come together. In the case of nuclear decay, 
> the coherence is lost immediately, so the nucleus does not interfere with 
> the decay products.
>
> Bruce
>

*So you agree or disagree with my conclusion; namely, the cat is never in a 
superposition of states? That is, no situation where cat is Alive and Dead 
simultaneously. I think you disagree and think the nuclear state is 
superposed with interference existing. AG *

 

> decoherent entanglement then leads to the splitting of worlds FAPP.
>


-- 
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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-12 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:11 PM,  wrote:

>> 
>> The Equivalence Principle says if
>> you
>>  ignore tidal effects and you're in a windowless elevator cab there is no
>> way to know if you're sitting on the Earth in a gravitational field or in
>> deep intergalactic space being accelerated by a rocket upward at 1G. If you
>> feel zero G and fire a Laser pointer from one wall
>> to the other 
>> it will go in a straight line and hit the exact opposite side on the
>> other wall. But if you were being accelerated upward the elevator cab will
>> move
>> slightly 
>> upward in the time it takes for the light to go from one wall to the
>> other so the spot the laser makes on the other wall will be slightly lower
>> than it was when you were in zero G, you see the laser beam follow a curve.
>>
>
> > 
> At rest on Earth is not a situation of zero G; it's 1G. Or, say, if you
> want a straight beam, one can assume an inertial frame,
>

The surface of the Earth is in a gravitational field and so it is *NOT* a
inertial frame, and so light from a Laser pointer does curve, although not
by a lot. The interior of an
elevator in which the cable has been cut would be a inertial frame, until
it hit the ground. 

>>
>> A curved line from one wall to the other is longer than a straight line
>> ,
>> and yet when you measure the time it takes for light to do this with your
>> very accurate clock you notice its exactly the same. You already know the
>> measured speed of light never changes so
>> if something is moving at the same speed and moves a greater distance in
>> the same number of clock ticks then
>> you'd have to conclude that being accelerated makes your clock run slow.
>>
>
> > 
> I think most of last paragraph incorrect. In experiments with GPS clocks,
> the ground clock, in the stronger gravity field, runs slower than an
> orbiting clock.
>

T
he
GPS 
satellite is moving very fast so due to Special Relativity the satellite's
clock will LOSE 7210 nanoseconds a day, but the satellite's clock is in a
weaker gravitational field than the clock
on the ground
because it is further from the Earth's center, so due to GENERAL RELATIVITY
 the clock will GAIN 45850 nanoseconds a day. Taking these 2 factors into
account the satellite's clocks gains 45850 −7210 = 38,640 nanoseconds a day
relative to
a
 clock
on the ground. If this were not taken into account the GPS system would
drift off by 6 miles a day.

> > 
> Fewer ticks in ground clock
>

Yes, a clock on the ground in a 1G gravitational field 

or a clock in deep space being accelerated by a rocket at 1G will record
fewer ticks than a non-accelerating clock in no gravitational field.

> 
> In your elevator example, where zero G can be interpreted as being in an
> inertial frame, you claim the elapsed time duration using ticks, is
> identical for both beams.

I'm not sure which 2 beams you're talking about. The interior of the
elevator sitting on the ground

and the elevator in deep space being accelerated by a rocket are
identical. The elevator with the broken cable near the earth and
the elevator with no rocket in deep space are identical.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:


So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and
the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; 



*Unlike the double slit experiment, which can only be understood with 
interference and the model that the electron wave, say, goes through 
both slits, the nuclear decay is a BINARY event, very roughly like a 
coin toss where there is no interference. Generalizing interference to 
every quantum state is where Schrodinger went wrong. The cat, which 
shares or inherits the wf from the radioactive decay, is never in both 
Alive and Dead states simultaneously. AG*


In the double slit, the paths through the two slits remain coherent, so 
they can interfere when they come together. In the case of nuclear 
decay, the coherence is lost immediately, so the nucleus does not 
interfere with the decay products.


Bruce




decoherent entanglement then leads to the splitting of worlds FAPP.




--
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

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: 
> > On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude 
> >>> estimate for the center of mass.  What the calculation shows is that 
> >>> quantum superpositions do exists at the macroscopic level and these 
> >>> can then be amplified by chaotic dynamics. Of course,  it then 
> >>> becomes incoherent, but in the MWI that's besides the point. 
> >> 
> >> MWI splitting depends on coherence, so it is certainly not beside the 
> >> point for the coin toss. 
> > 
> > It doesn't depend on coherence. Why would it matter if the state of 
> > the coin gets entangled with a zillion other environmental degrees of 
> > freedom? The dynamics according to unitary time evolution leads toa   
> > superposition, no matter how many degrees of freedom are involved in 
> > the entanglement. 
>
> You are missing the point. Splitting according to the Schrödinger 
> equation does depend on coherence. The decoherence that entangles the 
> coin with a zillion other environmental degrees of freedom occurs after 
> the splitting. Given decoherence, the process is irreversible FAPP, 
> which means that there is no practical way, by design or chance, that a 
> decohered state can recohere. Sure, in the many worlds of MWI the 
> superposition, if it once existed, is still intact. But if no such 
> superposition ever existed, then it can't be created from non-coherent 
> interactions. 
>
> So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and 
> the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; 


*Unlike the double slit experiment, which can only be understood with 
interference and the model that the electron wave, say, goes through both 
slits, the nuclear decay is a BINARY event, very roughly like a coin toss 
where there is no interference. Generalizing interference to every quantum 
state is where Schrodinger went wrong. The cat, which shares or inherits 
the wf from the radioactive decay, is never in both Alive and Dead states 
simultaneously. AG*
 

> decoherent 
> entanglement then leads to the splitting of worlds FAPP. But given an 
> arbitrary coin, it is already non-coherently entangled with many 
> environmental degrees of freedom, but there is no state that can lead to 
> {heads>+|tails>} in a unitary manner, so there is no state that can then 
> evolve into a splitting and decoherence into worlds distinguished by 
> either |heads> or |tails>. If you think that there is, write out the 
> schematic sequence of states evolving under the SE that leads to this 
> result. 
>
> > The only relevant issue here is if you then become different due to 
> > such an entanglement such that even before you make a measurement, you 
> > will already feel subjectively different in the two sectors. 
>
> What you feel subjectively is irrelevant to the existence or 
> non-existence of splitting. In the Cat scenario, you don't know the 
> result until you open the box, but the split occurred long before that, 
> and the cat was dead in one world but still alive in the other long 
> before the observer became aware of it. 
>
> > Otherwise you have an exact copy as far as your subjective feelings 
> > are concerned, so before measurement you can end up in both sectors. 
>
> You are in both sectors even after the split -- it is just that the 
> "you" in one world exist alongside a live cat, and in the other world 
> you exist alongside a dead cat. However, in the case of the coin toss, 
> there is no splitting due to the toss -- so if there is splitting caused 
> by some other adjacent quantum event, then you exist in each of the 
> consequent worlds in the same state viv a vis the coin; i.e., it is 
> either heads in all the worlds, or tails in all the worlds. 
>
> MWI mumbo jumbo and appeals to "entanglement" magic cannot get you out 
> of the clear results of quantum evolution. 
>
> Bruce 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:

On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:


Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude 
estimate for the center of mass.  What the calculation shows is that 
quantum superpositions do exists at the macroscopic level and these 
can then be amplified by chaotic dynamics. Of course,  it then 
becomes incoherent, but in the MWI that's besides the point.


MWI splitting depends on coherence, so it is certainly not beside the
point for the coin toss.


It doesn't depend on coherence. Why would it matter if the state of 
the coin gets entangled with a zillion other environmental degrees of 
freedom? The dynamics according to unitary time evolution leads toa  
superposition, no matter how many degrees of freedom are involved in 
the entanglement.


You are missing the point. Splitting according to the Schrödinger 
equation does depend on coherence. The decoherence that entangles the 
coin with a zillion other environmental degrees of freedom occurs after 
the splitting. Given decoherence, the process is irreversible FAPP, 
which means that there is no practical way, by design or chance, that a 
decohered state can recohere. Sure, in the many worlds of MWI the 
superposition, if it once existed, is still intact. But if no such 
superposition ever existed, then it can't be created from non-coherent 
interactions.


So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and 
the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; decoherent 
entanglement then leads to the splitting of worlds FAPP. But given an 
arbitrary coin, it is already non-coherently entangled with many 
environmental degrees of freedom, but there is no state that can lead to 
{heads>+|tails>} in a unitary manner, so there is no state that can then 
evolve into a splitting and decoherence into worlds distinguished by 
either |heads> or |tails>. If you think that there is, write out the 
schematic sequence of states evolving under the SE that leads to this 
result.


The only relevant issue here is if you then become different due to 
such an entanglement such that even before you make a measurement, you 
will already feel subjectively different in the two sectors.


What you feel subjectively is irrelevant to the existence or 
non-existence of splitting. In the Cat scenario, you don't know the 
result until you open the box, but the split occurred long before that, 
and the cat was dead in one world but still alive in the other long 
before the observer became aware of it.


Otherwise you have an exact copy as far as your subjective feelings 
are concerned, so before measurement you can end up in both sectors.


You are in both sectors even after the split -- it is just that the 
"you" in one world exist alongside a live cat, and in the other world 
you exist alongside a dead cat. However, in the case of the coin toss, 
there is no splitting due to the toss -- so if there is splitting caused 
by some other adjacent quantum event, then you exist in each of the 
consequent worlds in the same state viv a vis the coin; i.e., it is 
either heads in all the worlds, or tails in all the worlds.


MWI mumbo jumbo and appeals to "entanglement" magic cannot get you out 
of the clear results of quantum evolution.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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.

Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000

Not every superposition of states implies interference. Connect the dots. 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.
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

2017-12-12 Thread smitra


On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:

On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never  
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for  
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} 
base/apparatus.  Superposition never disappear, and a coin 
moree or less with a precise position, is always a 
superposition of a coin with more  or less precise momenta. 
The relation is given by the Fourier  transforms, which gives 
the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, 
the  uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions 
and/or  momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
irrelevant  for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
this  out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
obfuscate,  and hide the fact that you have no rational argument 
to offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
rhetorical,

 but fundamental in this thread.



We actually do detect quantum uncertainties for macroscopic 
objects routinely when doing typical quantum experiments. 
Interference experiments involving photons is a good example. 
Suppose we have an interferometer that has mirrors in it, the 
photons bounce off the mirrors and at some spot the different 
possible paths come together and you can then detect or not detect 
photons there.


One can then ask why the momentum absorbed by the mirror when a 
photon bounces off it, does not destroy the interference pattern. 
One may consider here a thought experiment where the mirrors are 
freely floating in a magnetic field. But that's not actually 
necessary, if you could in principle detect the momentum from the 
recoil of the photons, then you won't get interference and in 
general the interference becomes weaker if you can in principle 
get partial information.


The answer to this question is that macroscopic objects such as 
the mirror in interferometers do not have sharply defined momenta. 
In fact, you could argue that unless the mirror surface is not 
located to well within the wavelength of light, you obviously 
wouldn't get interference, and applying the uncertainty relations 
then also gives you an uncertainty in the momentum. But this 
doesn't tell you what the uncertainty in the momentum typically 
is.


The uncertainty in the center of mass position can be estimated 
crudely as the thermal De-Broglie wavelength. A displacement well 
within this length scale will not lead to the environment 
interacting appreciably differently with it. So, the uncertainty 
in the position will be of the order of h/sqrt(m k T). The 
interpretation is then that a wavefunction spreading beyond this 
length will effectively collapse back to within this length scale 
due to the environment effectively having located the center of 
mass within this scale.


The uncertainty in the momentum is then of the order of sqrt(m k 
T), and this can actually be quite large for large objects. This 
large uncertainty in the momentum in absolute terms explains why 
you can actually do quantum experiments using macroscopic 
measurement devices.


There is a fairly serious error in your analysis. You use an
expression for the momentum, p = mv = sqrt(3mkT), which applies to
molecules in an ideal gas. Mirrors in quantum experiments are not
molecules in an ideal gas! What is more, molecules in an ideal gas 
are
not located within their de Broglie wavelengths. You forget that 
the

uncertainty principle applies to the uncertainty in measurement
results, and the molecules of the gas are not constrained such that
their position uncertainty is that small.

In other words, you are talking nonsense.



No, your arguments are totally wrong here.

 The thermal de Broglie wavelength is a measure for the coherence 
length of the molecules in a gas and this then gives the coherence 
length in momentum space via the uncertainty relation


No, the de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength, not the coherence
length. The coherence length is given by the size of the wave packet,
so for photons, the coherence length is often orders of magnitude
greater than the wavelength.

(if you want to invoke measurement here, you can say that the 
environment consisting of all other molecules effectively "measure" 
the position of the center of mass). To a good approximation this 
also applies to atoms in a solid, the fact that a solid is not an 
ideal gas doesn't actually

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 10:47 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never 
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for 
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} 
base/apparatus. Superposition never disappear, and a coin 
moree or less with a precise position, is always a 
superposition of a coin with more or less precise momenta. The 
relation is given by the Fourier transforms, which gives the 
relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the 
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or 
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
irrelevant for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument 
to offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether 
a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with 
probabilities given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a 
quantum event with probabilities given by purely quantum 
uncertainties.


This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to 
do with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics' 
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to 
the clear physics of the situation.



I was using "metaphysics" in opposition to your instrumentalist FAPP 
distraction. Metaphysics and/or theology involves the question of 
the existence of the universe(s), parallel or not.


Then you make ad hominem insult in place of argument. I guess your 
goal is not to enlighten me.


You are the one making the personal attacks. You can do metaphysics 
in the privacy of your own home, but here in public, I talk about 
verifiable physics.


My attack was on your use of the "FAPP" to change the subject of the 
discussion which was on metaphysics at the start: the existence of the 
(obviously undetectable) other term of some macroscopic superposition. 
(It was not ad hominem at all).


Neither were any of my comments personal attacks. The original 
discussion was about whether or not the world split on the coin toss. 
Very little to do with metaphysics, and your continued introduction of 
irrelevant considerations has been nothing more than a distraction from 
the main discussion, adding nothing.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 10:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus.
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more
or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
irrelevant

for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to
offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a
coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event
with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.

This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do
with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the
clear physics of the situation.



That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply
that there is no branching due to the coin toss.


It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no 
possibility of interference between heads and tails.


You are begging the question. The point was that without collapse, 
the shaking of the dice or coin can make the superposition of the 
positions (inherent in the Heisenberg uncertainty) can add up to 
make the coin behaving sufficiently differently to obtain a 
superposition of the head+tail or 1+2+...+6 superposition.


No, shaking the coin cannot make non-coherent uncertainties add up to 
anything. The physics is against you here, Bruno. There is no 
superposition, and no splitting of worlds on the toss. If you think 
different, prove it.



Just to be sure, do you agree that without collapse, the schroedinger 
cat remains in the state alive+dead, even after observation, and we 
see it alive OR dead, just by the first-person mechanist indeterminacy 
(or something akin to it) ?


The superposition exists in the original quantum state -- essentially 
the radioactive nucleus which is a quantum system in a superposition of 
decayed/not-decayed. Because of the experimental set up, this 
superposition is amplified so that it becomes entangled with the 
environment, including the cat and us. So:


   |nucleus>|box>|cat>|observer>|rest of the world> --> (by unitary 
evolution)
   {|decayed>|poison spilt>|cat dead>|see dead cat>|rest of world 
confirms dead cat> +
   |not decayed>|poison bottle intact>|cat alive>|see live cat>|rest of 
world confirms live cat>}


And the decoherence of the quantum phases into the |rest of the world> 
environmental states diagonalizes the density matrix FAPP. If you 
insist, the superposition is intact in the bird view, but such a 
superposition can never recohere, and there are NO consequences of the 
existence of other branches, practical or otherwise. Maintaining their 
existence might satisfy your existential angst, but it has nothing to do 
with physics or experience.



Also, how could the quantum uncertainties becoming non-coherent? 
Decoherence, without collapse is something relative to the environment 
when its get itself entangled with the superposition of the object 
observed. The splitting of worlds is not due to the toss, but to the 
fact that the position of the coin diffuse, which means get different 
in the multiverse. Instead of shaking the box, waiting long enough 
would work as well.


The coin case is different in an essential way -- it does not start from 
a single quantum state that can be expanded into {|heads> + |tails>} by 
any single quantum event. The system starts off decohered and 
non-coherent. So just as you can never bring the two branches of the cat 
back together, you can never take an initially decohered state and 
reconstruct some imagined coherent superposition, unitary evolution and 
the laws of thermodynamics forbid it.

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

2017-12-12 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:09:19 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/10/2017 5:25 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote: 



 On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:17:38 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29 AM UTC-6, 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 


 I think you're making the unwarranted assumption that the measured 
 shift in H is not 
 effected by the cosmological red shift which presumably shifts all 
 wave lengths. AG 

>>>
>>> Of course it shifts all wavelengths by the same factor. So the 
>>> spectrum of atoms are shifted accordingly. With v = Hd the red shift 
>>> factor 
>>> is z = v/c = H(d/c). for H = 70km/s/Mpc for v = c we then have that d = 
>>> c/H 
>>> = 3x10^{5}km/s/(70Mpc/km/s) = 4.3x10^3Mpc = 1.4x10^{10}ly. So at z = 1 
>>> there lies the cosmological horizon. We now observe galaxies with z = 8 
>>> and 
>>> the CMB has z = 1100. One can however thing of these photons as emitted 
>>> prior to these systems crossing the horizon. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Since a parsec is about 3.26 LY and the SoL is about 300,000 km/sec, 
>> the event horizon should be about 300,000/70 * 3.26 * 10^6 = 13971 * 
>> 10^6 
>> LY =~ 13971 MLY = 13.971 BLY. But this is a far cry from about 50 BLY, 
>> which is what I think the true distance is to the event horizon. I 
>> probably 
>> didn't account for the intervening expansion. How is accurate 
>> calculation 
>> done? TIA, AG
>>
>
> That is about it. There is a bit with significant figures for you 
> might want to use c = 299800km/s.
>
> LC 
>

 But isn't the event horizon much farther out, about 50 BLY? AG 

>>>
>>> No that is about where the CMB surface of last scatter lies. 
>>>
>>>
>>> To clarify, you mean where it lies "*now"*; and *"now" *means the 
>>> (universe wide) time at which the CMB is 2.7degK.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> The photons we observe from the CMB were emitted prior to the ionized gas 
>> crossing the cosmological horizon. We see it as it was 380k years after the 
>> big bang, with this huge red shifting. This red shifting indicates that on 
>> the Hubble frame this stuff is "way out there," in fact at about 47bly 
>> beyond the horizon.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> If I make the correction you suggest, I will get about 13.8 BLY for the 
> event horizon, which is the distance a photon would travel if it began its 
> journey at t = 0, ignoring the intervening expansion. Is this 
> coincidental?  Moreover, the figure of 47 BLY is the current distance of 
> the object which emitted said photon. So I don't have to worry about the 
> CMB to calculate this value. I think I just need to integrate for the age 
> of the universe, but I am not sure what the integrand should be. AG
>

The light year distance of the cosmological horizon and the time of the 
cosmos is somewhat coincidental. Some have speculated the equality of these 
two occurs at a time that is optimal of cosmological observations and 
intelligent life. The cosh or exp factor in the de Sitter metric is what 
results in deviations for large distances.

LC 

-- 
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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/ 
apparatus.
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less  
with a
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with  
more

or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/ 
worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin,  
the

uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant

for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational  
argument to

offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is  
whether a

coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum  
event

with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.

This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing  
to do

with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to  
the

clear physics of the situation.



That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not  
imply

that there is no branching due to the coin toss.


It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no  
possibility of interference between heads and tails.


You are begging the question. The point was that without collapse,  
the shaking of the dice or coin can make the superposition of the  
positions (inherent in the Heisenberg uncertainty) can add up to  
make the coin behaving sufficiently differently to obtain a  
superposition of the head+tail or 1+2+...+6 superposition.


No, shaking the coin cannot make non-coherent uncertainties add up  
to anything. The physics is against you here, Bruno. There is no  
superposition, and no splitting of worlds on the toss. If you think  
different, prove it.



Just to be sure, do you agree that without collapse, the schroedinger  
cat remains in the state alive+dead, even after observation, and we  
see it alive OR dead, just by the first-person mechanist indeterminacy  
(or something akin to it) ?


Also, how could the quantum uncertainties becoming non-coherent?  
Decoherence, without collapse is something relative to the environment  
when its get itself entangled with the superposition of the object  
observed. The splitting of worlds is not due to the toss, but to the  
fact that the position of the coin diffuse, which means get different  
in the multiverse. Instead of shaking the box, waiting long enough  
would work as well.


Bruno




Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never  
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for  
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/ 
apparatus. Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or  
less with a precise position, is always a superposition of a  
coin with more or less precise momenta. The relation is given  
by the Fourier transforms, which gives the relative  
accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin,  
the uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/ 
or momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot  
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to  
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument  
to offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not  
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether  
a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with  
probabilities given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as  
a quantum event with probabilities given by purely quantum  
uncertainties.


This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to  
do with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term  
'metaphysics' merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent  
response to the clear physics of the situation.



I was using "metaphysics" in opposition to your instrumentalist  
FAPP distraction. Metaphysics and/or theology involves the question  
of the existence of the universe(s), parallel or not.


Then you make ad hominem insult in place of argument. I guess your  
goal is not to enlighten me.


You are the one making the personal attacks. You can do metaphysics  
in the privacy of your own home, but here in public, I talk about  
verifiable physics.


My attack was on your use of the "FAPP" to change the subject of the  
discussion which was on metaphysics at the start: the existence of the  
(obviously undetectable) other term of some macroscopic superposition.  
(It was not ad hominem at all).


Bruno





Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote:

On 12-12-2017 02:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:


As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to
explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum
substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct
answers in those classical situations. If you do not believe that
these classical calculations are correct, then I advise you not ever
to drive your car on a busy road.


There is no way a Hilbert space can become a classical configuration 
space. If one sticks to a  falsified theory (in the domain where you 
can hide the shortcomings under the carpet) and cast doubt on a 
theory that has withstood rigorous experimental tests, then it's 
likely that attitude that's the cause of most problems.


I think you have to take account of decoherence, and the reduction of
the density matrix to diagonal form FAPP. The diagonal density matrix
corresponds to normal classical probabilities and disjoint Everettian
worlds. After all, classical physics has withstood the most rigorous
experimental tests in its proper domain. Quantum theory does nothing
to undermine these results.



Decoherence doesn't change the Hilbert space into a classical phase space.


But it does change the explanation of events, and the expectations for 
enduring coherence.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:

On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never  
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for  
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} 
base/apparatus.  Superposition never disappear, and a coin 
moree or less with a precise position, is always a 
superposition of a coin with more  or less precise momenta. 
The relation is given by the Fourier  transforms, which gives 
the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, 
the  uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions 
and/or  momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
irrelevant  for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
this  out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
obfuscate,  and hide the fact that you have no rational argument 
to offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
rhetorical,

 but fundamental in this thread.



We actually do detect quantum uncertainties for macroscopic 
objects routinely when doing typical quantum experiments. 
Interference experiments involving photons is a good example. 
Suppose we have an interferometer that has mirrors in it, the 
photons bounce off the mirrors and at some spot the different 
possible paths come together and you can then detect or not detect 
photons there.


One can then ask why the momentum absorbed by the mirror when a 
photon bounces off it, does not destroy the interference pattern. 
One may consider here a thought experiment where the mirrors are 
freely floating in a magnetic field. But that's not actually 
necessary, if you could in principle detect the momentum from the 
recoil of the photons, then you won't get interference and in 
general the interference becomes weaker if you can in principle 
get partial information.


The answer to this question is that macroscopic objects such as 
the mirror in interferometers do not have sharply defined momenta. 
In fact, you could argue that unless the mirror surface is not 
located to well within the wavelength of light, you obviously 
wouldn't get interference, and applying the uncertainty relations 
then also gives you an uncertainty in the momentum. But this 
doesn't tell you what the uncertainty in the momentum typically is.


The uncertainty in the center of mass position can be estimated 
crudely as the thermal De-Broglie wavelength. A displacement well 
within this length scale will not lead to the environment 
interacting appreciably differently with it. So, the uncertainty 
in the position will be of the order of h/sqrt(m k T). The 
interpretation is then that a wavefunction spreading beyond this 
length will effectively collapse back to within this length scale 
due to the environment effectively having located the center of 
mass within this scale.


The uncertainty in the momentum is then of the order of sqrt(m k 
T), and this can actually be quite large for large objects. This 
large uncertainty in the momentum in absolute terms explains why 
you can actually do quantum experiments using macroscopic 
measurement devices.


There is a fairly serious error in your analysis. You use an
expression for the momentum, p = mv = sqrt(3mkT), which applies to
molecules in an ideal gas. Mirrors in quantum experiments are not
molecules in an ideal gas! What is more, molecules in an ideal gas are
not located within their de Broglie wavelengths. You forget that the
uncertainty principle applies to the uncertainty in measurement
results, and the molecules of the gas are not constrained such that
their position uncertainty is that small.

In other words, you are talking nonsense.



No, your arguments are totally wrong here.

 The thermal de Broglie wavelength is a measure for the coherence 
length of the molecules in a gas and this then gives the coherence 
length in momentum space via the uncertainty relation


No, the de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength, not the coherence
length. The coherence length is given by the size of the wave packet,
so for photons, the coherence length is often orders of magnitude
greater than the wavelength.

(if you want to invoke measurement here, you can say that the 
environment consisting of all other molecules effectively "measure" 
the position of the center of mass). To a good approximation this 
also applies to atoms in a solid, the fact that a solid is not an 
ideal gas doesn't actually matter all that much for the coherence

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread smitra


On 12-12-2017 02:41, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote:


As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics
is to
explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum
substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the
correct
answers in those classical situations. If you do not believe that

these classical calculations are correct, then I advise you not
ever
to drive your car on a busy road.


There is no way a Hilbert space can become a classical
configuration space. If one sticks to a falsified theory (in the
domain where you can hide the shortcomings under the carpet) and
cast doubt on a theory that has withstood rigorous experimental
tests, then it's likely that attitude that's the cause of most
problems.


 That's what I mean by logic chopping.  Everything is quantum
therefore every uncertainty is quantum uncertainty...therefore all
insurance companies should be studying Hilbert space.  This overlooks
the fact that the classical world is far better empirically supported
than the quantum world and there is consistency between quantum
mechanics and our theory of spacetime.  It is like Bruno's argument
that starts with the assumption that his theory is correct in order to
prove that fundamental physics (whatever that is) is wrong.



That's like saying that biology is far better empirically supported than 
chemistry in the biological world and that therefore when chemistry 
suggests that some effect should in principle exist in a biological 
system but it is difficult to measure, we're just going to ignore that.  
And, of course,   biologists are not so well versed in chemistry.


Saibal

--
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

2017-12-12 Thread smitra


On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never  
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for  
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus. 
 Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a 
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more 
 or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier  
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the  
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or  
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
irrelevant  for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
this  out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
obfuscate,  and hide the fact that you have no rational argument 
to offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
rhetorical,

 but fundamental in this thread.



We actually do detect quantum uncertainties for macroscopic objects 
routinely when doing typical quantum experiments. Interference 
experiments involving photons is a good example. Suppose we have an 
interferometer that has mirrors in it, the photons bounce off the 
mirrors and at some spot the different possible paths come together 
and you can then detect or not detect photons there.


One can then ask why the momentum absorbed by the mirror when a 
photon bounces off it, does not destroy the interference pattern. 
One may consider here a thought experiment where the mirrors are 
freely floating in a magnetic field. But that's not actually 
necessary, if you could in principle detect the momentum from the 
recoil of the photons, then you won't get interference and in 
general the interference becomes weaker if you can in principle get 
partial information.


The answer to this question is that macroscopic objects such as the 
mirror in interferometers do not have sharply defined momenta. In 
fact, you could argue that unless the mirror surface is not located 
to well within the wavelength of light, you obviously wouldn't get 
interference, and applying the uncertainty relations then also gives 
you an uncertainty in the momentum. But this doesn't tell you what 
the uncertainty in the momentum typically is.


The uncertainty in the center of mass position can be estimated 
crudely as the thermal De-Broglie wavelength. A displacement well 
within this length scale will not lead to the environment 
interacting appreciably differently with it. So, the uncertainty in 
the position will be of the order of h/sqrt(m k T). The 
interpretation is then that a wavefunction spreading beyond this 
length will effectively collapse back to within this length scale 
due to the environment effectively having located the center of mass 
within this scale.


The uncertainty in the momentum is then of the order of sqrt(m k T), 
and this can actually be quite large for large objects. This large 
uncertainty in the momentum in absolute terms explains why you can 
actually do quantum experiments using macroscopic measurement 
devices.


There is a fairly serious error in your analysis. You use an
expression for the momentum, p = mv = sqrt(3mkT), which applies to
molecules in an ideal gas. Mirrors in quantum experiments are not
molecules in an ideal gas! What is more, molecules in an ideal gas 
are

not located within their de Broglie wavelengths. You forget that the
uncertainty principle applies to the uncertainty in measurement
results, and the molecules of the gas are not constrained such that
their position uncertainty is that small.

In other words, you are talking nonsense.



No, your arguments are totally wrong here.

 The thermal de Broglie wavelength is a measure for the coherence 
length of the molecules in a gas and this then gives the coherence 
length in momentum space via the uncertainty relation


No, the de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength, not the coherence
length. The coherence length is given by the size of the wave packet,
so for photons, the coherence length is often orders of magnitude
greater than the wavelength.

(if you want to invoke measurement here, you can say that the 
environment consisting of all other molecules effectively "measure" 
the position of the center of mass). To a good approximation this also 
applies to atoms in a solid, the fact that a solid is not an ideal gas 
doesn't actually matter all that much for the coherence length.


So, the mistake you made here is to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread smitra


On 12-12-2017 02:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:


As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is 
to

explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum
substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct
answers in those classical situations. If you do not believe that
these classical calculations are correct, then I advise you not ever
to drive your car on a busy road.


There is no way a Hilbert space can become a classical configuration 
space. If one sticks to a  falsified theory (in the domain where you 
can hide the shortcomings under the carpet) and cast doubt on a theory 
that has withstood rigorous experimental tests, then it's likely that 
attitude that's the cause of most problems.


I think you have to take account of decoherence, and the reduction of
the density matrix to diagonal form FAPP. The diagonal density matrix
corresponds to normal classical probabilities and disjoint Everettian
worlds. After all, classical physics has withstood the most rigorous
experimental tests in its proper domain. Quantum theory does nothing
to undermine these results.



Decoherence doesn't change the Hilbert space into a classical phase 
space.


Saibal

--
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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 8:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
> On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead}
base/apparatus.
>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less
with a
>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin
with more
>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the
Fourier
>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible
states/worlds.
>>
>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a
coin, the
>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
>> momentum far below any level of possible detection.
>
> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but
irrelevant
> for theoretical consideration.

 This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you
trot
 this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
 obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational
argument to
 offer.
>>>
>>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
>>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.
>>
>> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is
whether a
>> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with
probabilities
>> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum
event
>> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.
>>
>> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has
nothing to do
>> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
>> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response
to the
>> clear physics of the situation.
>>
>
> That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not
imply
> that there is no branching due to the coin toss.

It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no
possibility of interference between heads and tails.

Bruce


Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, 
which IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG


It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if there 
is interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?


It is dead+alive, and once in that state, the superposition never 
disappears, unless you add the collapse. The measurement entangles 
only the observer with the cat, and he becomes in the superposition (I 
see the cat only alive + the see the cat only dead), etc.


So the cat is either dead or alive, depending on which Everettian branch 
you are in. It never recoheres, so the split is real.

Relative state and all that.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus.
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more
or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but irrelevant
for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to
offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a
coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event
with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.

This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do
with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the
clear physics of the situation.



That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply
that there is no branching due to the coin toss.


It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no 
possibility of interference between heads and tails.


You are begging the question. The point was that without collapse, the 
shaking of the dice or coin can make the superposition of the 
positions (inherent in the Heisenberg uncertainty) can add up to make 
the coin behaving sufficiently differently to obtain a superposition 
of the head+tail or 1+2+...+6 superposition.


No, shaking the coin cannot make non-coherent uncertainties add up to 
anything. The physics is against you here, Bruno. There is no 
superposition, and no splitting of worlds on the toss. If you think 
different, prove it.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Kellett


On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never 
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for 
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus. 
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a 
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more 
or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier 
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the 
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or 
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but irrelevant 
for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to 
offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a 
coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities 
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event 
with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.


This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do 
with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics' 
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the 
clear physics of the situation.



I was using "metaphysics" in opposition to your instrumentalist FAPP 
distraction. Metaphysics and/or theology involves the question of the 
existence of the universe(s), parallel or not.


Then you make ad hominem insult in place of argument. I guess your 
goal is not to enlighten me.


You are the one making the personal attacks. You can do metaphysics in 
the privacy of your own home, but here in public, I talk about 
verifiable physics.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 12 Dec 2017, at 09:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
> On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/ 
apparatus.
>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less  
with a
>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with  
more
>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the  
Fourier
>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/ 
worlds.

>>
>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin,  
the

>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
>> momentum far below any level of possible detection.
>
> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant

> for theoretical consideration.

 This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
 this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
 obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational  
argument to

 offer.
>>>
>>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
>>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.
>>
>> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is  
whether a
>> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with  
probabilities
>> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum  
event

>> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.
>>
>> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing  
to do

>> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
>> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response  
to the

>> clear physics of the situation.
>>
>
> That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not  
imply

> that there is no branching due to the coin toss.

It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no
possibility of interference between heads and tails.

Bruce

Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system,  
which IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG

It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if  
there is interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?

Bruce

What are the necessary conditions for interference?

Coherent superposition.

For the cat, I have no clue how to do that experiment. Do you? AG

No. Nor for the coin toss.

Bruce

If a system is in a coherent superposition, which means interference  
exists, and smitra claims the coin is in a superposition of,  
presumably, heads and tails, doesn't he have the obligation to  
indicate what the probability distribution will look like, or how to  
do an experiment to show it? AG

The theory explains why such an experiment is impossible to do, like  
Galilee's theory explain why we cannot feel the movement on Earth.  
That does not show that the theory is wrong, but that some of its  
consequences are not testable in practice. In theory, erasing memories  
and re-isolation would do, but boh the erasing and the isolation are  
practically impossible, but that does not make the terms in the  
superposition disappear in the global wave.

Bruno

--
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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:41, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote:
As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics  
is to

explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum
substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct
answers in those classical situations. If you do not believe that
these classical calculations are correct, then I advise you not ever
to drive your car on a busy road.



There is no way a Hilbert space can become a classical  
configuration space. If one sticks to a  falsified theory (in the  
domain where you can hide the shortcomings under the carpet) and  
cast doubt on a theory that has withstood rigorous experimental  
tests, then it's likely that attitude that's the cause of most  
problems.


That's what I mean by logic chopping.  Everything is quantum  
therefore every uncertainty is quantum uncertainty...therefore all  
insurance companies should be studying Hilbert space.  This  
overlooks the fact that the classical world is far better  
empirically supported than the quantum world and there is  
consistency between quantum mechanics and our theory of spacetime.   
It is like Bruno's argument that starts with the assumption that his  
theory is correct in order to prove that fundamental physics  
(whatever that is) is wrong.


?

Yes, that is the idea: we start from a theory, derive a conclusion and  
then text it. In this thread the theory is SWE. The classical realm is  
only appearance well explained by Everett decoherence. Then with  
mechanism, up to now we use fundamental physics to refute or confirm  
mechanism, and it is indeed confirmed by QM (without collapse). I use  
fundamental physics, why would I think it to be wrong? It is the  
metaphysics of some physicists which is shown to be incompatible with  
mechanism, not physics. You attribute me something I never said. Like  
Bruce, you confuse physics (which is neutral on 0, 1, 2, ...  
universes) and metaphysics. The thinking is not driven by wanting to  
make good, FAPP, predictions, but to interrogate the truth of the  
situation.


Bruno





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.


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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
> On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/ 
apparatus.
>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less  
with a
>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with  
more

>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/ 
worlds.

>>
>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin,  
the

>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
>> momentum far below any level of possible detection.
>
> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant

> for theoretical consideration.

 This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
 this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
 obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational  
argument to

 offer.
>>>
>>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
>>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.
>>
>> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is  
whether a

>> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
>> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum  
event

>> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.
>>
>> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing  
to do

>> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
>> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to  
the

>> clear physics of the situation.
>>
>
> That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not  
imply

> that there is no branching due to the coin toss.

It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no
possibility of interference between heads and tails.

Bruce

Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system,  
which IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG


It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if  
there is interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?


It is dead+alive, and once in that state, the superposition never  
disappears, unless you add the collapse. The measurement entangles  
only the observer with the cat, and he becomes in the superposition (I  
see the cat only alive + the see the cat only dead), etc.


Bruno





Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus.
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more
or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant

for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to
offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a
coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event
with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.

This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do
with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the
clear physics of the situation.



That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply
that there is no branching due to the coin toss.


It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no  
possibility of interference between heads and tails.


You are begging the question. The point was that without collapse, the  
shaking of the dice or coin can make the superposition of the  
positions (inherent in the Heisenberg uncertainty) can add up to make  
the coin behaving sufficiently differently to obtain a superposition  
of the head+tail or 1+2+...+6 superposition.


Bruno




Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never  
become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for  
anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus.  
Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a  
precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more  
or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier  
transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.


I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the  
uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or  
momentum far below any level of possible detection.


Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but  
irrelevant for theoretical consideration.


This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot  
this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to  
obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to  
offer.


You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not  
rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.


Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a  
coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities  
given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event  
with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.


This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do  
with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'  
merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the  
clear physics of the situation.



I was using "metaphysics" in opposition to your instrumentalist FAPP  
distraction. Metaphysics and/or theology involves the question of the  
existence of the universe(s), parallel or not.


Then you make ad hominem insult in place of argument. I guess your  
goal is not to enlighten me.


Bruno




Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 8:35:50 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 

 On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: 
 > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
 >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
  On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 > On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
 >> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 >>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never 
 >>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for 
 >>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus. 
 >>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a 
 >>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more 
 >>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier 
 >>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds. 
 >> 
 >> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the 
 >> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or 
 >> momentum far below any level of possible detection. 
 > 
 > Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but 
 irrelevant 
 > for theoretical consideration. 
  
  This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
  this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
  obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to 
  offer. 
 >>> 
 >>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
 >>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread. 
 >> 
 >> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a 
 >> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities 
 >> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event 
 >> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties. 
 >> 
 >> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do 
 >> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics' 
 >> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the 
 >> clear physics of the situation. 
 >> 
 > 
 > That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply 
 > that there is no branching due to the coin toss. 

 It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no 
 possibility of interference between heads and tails. 

 Bruce 

>>>
>>> Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, which 
>>> IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if there is 
>>> interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> What are the necessary conditions for interference?
>>
>>
>> Coherent superposition.
>>
>> For the cat, I have no clue how to do that experiment. Do you? AG
>>
>>
>> No. Nor for the coin toss.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> If a system is in a coherent superposition, which means interference 
> exists, and smitra claims the coin is in a superposition of, presumably, 
> heads and tails, doesn't he have the obligation to indicate what the 
> probability distribution will look like, or how to do an experiment to show 
> it? AG
>

As you suggested, superposition for the coin is similar to superposition 
for the cat. However, in the latter case, it is assumed that the cat 
inherits its superposition from the radioactive source. What is the 
superposition and more important the interference for the radioactive 
source, which like the coin and cat has a binary outcome? AG
s  
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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

2017-12-12 Thread agrayson2000



On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: 
>>> > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>>> >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>>>  On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> > On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>>> >> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> >>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never 
>>> >>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for 
>>> >>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus. 
>>> >>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a 
>>> >>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more 
>>> >>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier 
>>> >>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the 
>>> >> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or 
>>> >> momentum far below any level of possible detection. 
>>> > 
>>> > Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but irrelevant 
>>> > for theoretical consideration. 
>>>  
>>>  This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot 
>>>  this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to 
>>>  obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to 
>>>  offer. 
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not 
>>> >>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a 
>>> >> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities 
>>> >> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event 
>>> >> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do 
>>> >> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics' 
>>> >> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the 
>>> >> clear physics of the situation. 
>>> >> 
>>> > 
>>> > That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply 
>>> > that there is no branching due to the coin toss. 
>>>
>>> It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no 
>>> possibility of interference between heads and tails. 
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, which 
>> IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG 
>>
>>
>> It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if there is 
>> interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> What are the necessary conditions for interference?
>
>
> Coherent superposition.
>
> For the cat, I have no clue how to do that experiment. Do you? AG
>
>
> No. Nor for the coin toss.
>
> Bruce
>

If a system is in a coherent superposition, which means interference 
exists, and smitra claims the coin is in a superposition of, presumably, 
heads and tails, doesn't he have the obligation to indicate what the 
probability distribution will look like, or how to do an experiment to show 
it? 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.
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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

33 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information