date:20171216

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000



On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:56:59 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> agrays...@gmail.com
>>  Wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 
>>> Not a problem. Easily solved.
>>
>>
>> *Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the 
>> last 90 years. I guess they can relax now.*
>>  
>>
>>> > 
>>> collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the isolated 
>>> system interacts with the macro environment, in this case when the box 
>>> opens,
>>
>>
>> *Which box, the cat's box, Wigner's friend's box, Wigner's box, or 
>> any of the infinite number of other nested boxes?*
>>
>
> The box containing the cat.The point is to violate its isolation, which is 
> the necessary condition for undoing the superposition of states. AG 
>
>>  
>>
>>> > 
>>> or more generally when the system interacts with a macro system called 
>>> 'the measuring device'.
>>
>>  
>> *The measuring device itself is part of the universe, so explain to me 
>> what a cosmologist is supposed to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. *
>>
>
> Please be more specific. Maybe they should use Heisenberg's Picture. AG 
>
>>
>> >
>>>  I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological status.
>>
>>
>> *The*
>> * Schrodinger Wave Function is a computational tool with the same 
>> ontological status as lines of latitude and longitude, but the square of 
>> the absolute value of the wave function at a point is more concrete because 
>> that is a probability and unlike the wave function itself humans can 
>> measure probability. And you can do quantum mechanics without the wave 
>> function, in fact Heisenberg came out with a way to do that about 6 months 
>> before Schrodinger discovered his wave function; they both give the same 
>> answers but in most situations Schrodinger way is easier to use. *
>>
>
> I studied it at the graduate level but can't recall any details. If 
> there's no collapse in that theory, maybe collapse isn't a real issue; just 
> a feature of the wave picture. AG 
>
>>
>>
>> *If you dislike the wave function you'll really hate Heisenberg method, 
>> its even more abstract and Heisenberg took pride over the fact its 
>> completely un-visualizable; you input some measured values into 
>> Heisenberg's mathematical machinery and it outputs the probability of 
>> getting other measured values  And Heisenberg doesn't treat variables that 
>> haven't been measured as having a unknown value, he treats them as having 
>> no value at all. *
>>
>
> It seems like a promising approach. If you use it, will the Many Worlds of 
> the MWI go away? AG 
>
>>
>> * John K Clark*
>>
>
Any waves in Dirac's relativistic approach? Much better than Schrodinger's 
which is non-relativistic. Does MWI survive Dirac? 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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000



On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> agrays...@gmail.com 
>  Wrote:
>
>
> > 
>> Not a problem. Easily solved.
>
>
> *Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the 
> last 90 years. I guess they can relax now.*
>  
>
>> > 
>> collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the isolated 
>> system interacts with the macro environment, in this case when the box 
>> opens,
>
>
> *Which box, the cat's box, Wigner's friend's box, Wigner's box, or 
> any of the infinite number of other nested boxes?*
>

The box containing the cat.The point is to violate its isolation, which is 
the necessary condition for undoing the superposition of states. AG 

>  
>
>> > 
>> or more generally when the system interacts with a macro system called 
>> 'the measuring device'.
>
>  
> *The measuring device itself is part of the universe, so explain to me 
> what a cosmologist is supposed to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. *
>

Please be more specific. Maybe they should use Heisenberg's Picture. AG 

>
> >
>>  I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological status.
>
>
> *The*
> * Schrodinger Wave Function is a computational tool with the same 
> ontological status as lines of latitude and longitude, but the square of 
> the absolute value of the wave function at a point is more concrete because 
> that is a probability and unlike the wave function itself humans can 
> measure probability. And you can do quantum mechanics without the wave 
> function, in fact Heisenberg came out with a way to do that about 6 months 
> before Schrodinger discovered his wave function; they both give the same 
> answers but in most situations Schrodinger way is easier to use. *
>

I studied it at the graduate level but can't recall any details. If there's 
no collapse in that theory, maybe collapse isn't a real issue; just a 
feature of the wave picture. AG 

>
>
> *If you dislike the wave function you'll really hate Heisenberg method, 
> its even more abstract and Heisenberg took pride over the fact its 
> completely un-visualizable; you input some measured values into 
> Heisenberg's mathematical machinery and it outputs the probability of 
> getting other measured values  And Heisenberg doesn't treat variables that 
> haven't been measured as having a unknown value, he treats them as having 
> no value at all. *
>

It seems like a promising approach. If you use it, will the Many Worlds of 
the MWI go away? AG 

>
> * 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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-16 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:18 PM,  wrote:


> 
> The actual clock readings depends on the number of ticks. So if you claim
> the number of ticks is the same for both clocks, there will no difference
> in their readings.


*Both clocks produced the same number of ticks in the time it takes the
laser to go from one wall to the other,  but in one case (the curved
case) light went a longer distance than the other case, you know that
light can't change its speed so you have to conclude that the 2 clocks
can't be running at the same rate.*


>
>  I still question why SR is relevant


*If the 2 clocks were stationary relative to each other then it wouldn't
be, but they aren't so it is. *

*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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread John Clark

agrayson2...@gmail.com
 Wrote:


> 
> Not a problem. Easily solved.


*Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the
last 90 years. I guess they can relax now.*


> > 
> collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the isolated system
> interacts with the macro environment, in this case when the box opens,


*Which box, the cat's box, Wigner's friend's box, Wigner's box, or
any of the infinite number of other nested boxes?*


> > 
> or more generally when the system interacts with a macro system called
> 'the measuring device'.


*The measuring device itself is part of the universe, so explain to me
what a cosmologist is supposed to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. *

>
>  I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological status.


*The*
* Schrodinger Wave Function is a computational tool with the same
ontological status as lines of latitude and longitude, but the square of
the absolute value of the wave function at a point is more concrete because
that is a probability and unlike the wave function itself humans can
measure probability. And you can do quantum mechanics without the wave
function, in fact Heisenberg came out with a way to do that about 6 months
before Schrodinger discovered his wave function; they both give the same
answers but in most situations Schrodinger way is easier to use. *



*If you dislike the wave function you'll really hate Heisenberg method,
its even more abstract and Heisenberg took pride over the fact its
completely un-visualizable; you input some measured values into
Heisenberg's mathematical machinery and it outputs the probability of
getting other measured values  And Heisenberg doesn't treat variables that
haven't been measured as having a unknown value, he treats them as having
no value at all.  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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000



On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:13:49 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:59 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> >>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> > 
>> Since a clock in the gravity field measures less elapsed time, the number 
>> of ticks in your example cannot be identical in those two cases. 
>
>
> 
> A clock at 1g produces  ticks at a slower rate
> 
> but the laser beam  from one side on the 
> elevator 
> cab 
> to the other 
> is curved and thus longer
> 
> . 
>  
> A clock at zero g will produce ticks at a faster rate but the 
> laser beam  from one side on the 
> elevator 
> cab 
> to the other 
> is 
> straight
>  and thus 
> shorter
>  5. So when observers in both cabs count the number of ticks it takes for 
> the Laser to go from one side of the cab to the other then get the same 
> number,
>

The actual clock readings depends on the number of ticks. So if you claim 
the number of ticks is the same for both clocks, there will no difference 
in their readings. AG 

>
>
> 
>>> >>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> > 
>> There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the 
>> ground or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.
>>
>
> That's why general relativity must also we used. Two different thing 
> must be taken into account for the GPS to be accurate, the clock on the 
> earth and the clock in space are in gravitational fields of different 
> strengths AND the clocks are in motion relative to each other. 
>  
>

As Brent points out, the orbiting clock is in an inertial frame, but IMO 
not the ground clock. So I still question why SR is relevant. AG 

> 
>
> 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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-16 Thread Brent Meeker




On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the 
ground or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.AG


An orbiting clock is in an inertial frame.  An inertial frame is just 
one in which no forces are acting (and gravity is not a force) so that 
it moves with constant momentum along a geodesic.  Although it's 
convenient for engineering calculations, from a fundamental veiwpoint 
there is no separate special relativity and general relativity and no 
separate clock corrections.  General relativity is just special 
relativity in curved spacetime.  So clocks measure the 4-space interval 
along their path - whether that path is geodesic (i.e. inertial) or 
accelerated.


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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-16 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:59 PM,  wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> > 
> Since a clock in the gravity field measures less elapsed time, the number
> of ticks in your example cannot be identical in those two cases.



A clock at 1g produces  ticks at a slower rate

but the laser beam  from one side on the
elevator 
cab
to the other 
is curved and thus longer

.
 
A clock at zero g will produce ticks at a faster rate but the
laser beam  from one side on the
elevator 
cab
to the other 
is
straight
 and thus
shorter
 5. So when observers in both cabs count the number of ticks it takes for
the Laser to go from one side of the cab to the other then get the same
number,



>> >>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> > 
> There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground
> or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.
>

That's why general relativity must also we used. Two different thing must
be taken into account for the GPS to be accurate, the clock on the earth
and the clock in space are in gravitational fields of different strengths
AND the clocks are in motion relative to each other.



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: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000



On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 12:08:35 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
Since a clock in the gravity field measures less elapsed time, the number 
of ticks in your example cannot be identical in those two cases.  Moreover, 
I can't convince myself that the measured time in the two scenarios is 
identical. AG

>
>> > 
>> 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.
>
>
There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground 
or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.AG

>  
>
>> > 
>> 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.
>

Agreed. IIRC, I was thinking of the orbiting clock being so far removed, 
that it would effectively be in an inertial frame. AG
 

> 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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread Brent Meeker




On 12/16/2017 1:18 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:22:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark
wrote:

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote:

> 
I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for
Copenhagen. According to the CI, the wf collapses when
the system measured, which is when the box is opened.
What am I missing?



According to
 
Copenhagen
 
Wigner's friend
 
opens the cat box and that

collapses
 
the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend
 
now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend
 
is also in a box and Wigner
 
himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his
friend's box his friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state
AND a "I see a live cat state".  And of course you could
put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside it and
you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until
the entire universe is included, and that is why the
Copenhagen
 
interpretation is useless if you're
interest is in 
dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside
to
 universe observe it.

 And God
is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's
wave function, and even then there would be another
unanswered question too obvious to mention.

 John K Clark

*|
|Not a problem. Easily solved. Remember; a superposition of
states only exists for isolated systems, and the measurement,
collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the
isolated system interacts with the macro environment, in this
case when the box opens, or more generally when the system
interacts with a macro system called 'the measuring device'.
The cat problem is an idealized situation. In fact, one can
never isolate a cat from its environment, but this is
irrelevant for the illustrative purpose of Schrodinger's
thought experiment. We don't understand the measurement
process, but this doesn't justify affirming Tegmark and going
off into MWI fantasies. I now tend to agree with Lawrence that
the wf has no ontological status. Believing that it does has
led us into fairy tale land. AG*


It is not that the wave function is not ontological, though in one
sense it fails to be ontological in most standard meanings of that
term. I don't think the wave function is completely
epistemological either. It fails to fit completely into any
existential category we try to cram it into. The quantum wave
exhibits epistemic and ontic properties depending upon which
interpretation you choose to look at it with. However, all
interpretations have holes or problems; none of them is complete
and leave open problems. Most of these problems are with the
interpretation of probabilities and Born's rule.

LC



*I think we know what epistemic means when considering the wf, but 
ontic is murky, and denying it makes the MWI fantasy go away.  How 
would you define ontic so we can get an handle on what we're 
discussing? Clearly, probability waves and their interactions give us 
the right answer, but what are they? Do they "exist" in the physical 
world? AG*


Here's the paper that purports to show the wf must be ontic, 
arXiv:.3328v3


Matthew F. Pusey,  Jonathan Barrett,  and Terry Rudolph
(Dated: April 11, 2012)
Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is 
therefore surprising
that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly 
represents. One possibility
is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, 
there is a long history of
suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only 
knowledge or information
about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a 
quantum state represents
mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and 
in which systems that are
prepared independently have independent physical states, must make 
predictions which contradict

those of quantum theory.


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

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000



On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:22:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > 
 I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
 According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
 when the box is opened. What am I missing?

>>>
>>> 
>>> According to
>>>  
>>> Copenhagen
>>>  
>>> Wigner's friend
>>>  
>>> opens the cat box and that 
>>> 
>>> collapses
>>>  
>>> the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend
>>>  
>>> now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend
>>>  
>>> is also in a box and Wigner
>>>  
>>> himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's box his 
>>> friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a live cat state".  
>>> And of course you could put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside 
>>> it and you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until the 
>>> entire universe is included, and that is why the Copenhagen
>>>  
>>> interpretation is useless if you're 
>>> interest is in 
>>> dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside 
>>> to
>>>  universe observe it.
>>>
>>>  And God 
>>> is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's wave function, 
>>> and even then there would be another unanswered question too obvious to 
>>> mention.
>>>
>>>  John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> *Not a problem. Easily solved. Remember; a superposition of states only 
>> exists for isolated systems, and the measurement, collapse, or whatever you 
>> want to call it, occurs when the isolated system interacts with the macro 
>> environment, in this case when the box opens, or more generally when the 
>> system interacts with a macro system called 'the measuring device'. The cat 
>> problem is an idealized situation. In fact, one can never isolate a cat 
>> from its environment, but this is irrelevant for the illustrative purpose 
>> of Schrodinger's thought experiment. We don't understand the measurement 
>> process, but this doesn't justify affirming Tegmark and going off into MWI 
>> fantasies. I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological 
>> status. Believing that it does has led us into fairy tale land. AG*
>>
>
> It is not that the wave function is not ontological, though in one sense 
> it fails to be ontological in most standard meanings of that term. I don't 
> think the wave function is completely epistemological either. It fails to 
> fit completely into any existential category we try to cram it into. The 
> quantum wave exhibits epistemic and ontic properties depending upon which 
> interpretation you choose to look at it with. However, all interpretations 
> have holes or problems; none of them is complete and leave open problems. 
> Most of these problems are with the interpretation of probabilities and 
> Born's rule.
>
> LC
>


*I think we know what epistemic means when considering the wf, but ontic is 
murky, and denying it makes the MWI fantasy go away.  How would you define 
ontic so we can get an handle on what we're discussing?  Clearly, 
probability waves and their interactions give us the right answer, but what 
are they? Do they "exist" in the physical world? 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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > 
>>> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
>>> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
>>> when the box is opened. What am I missing?
>>>
>>
>> 
>> According to
>>  
>> Copenhagen
>>  
>> Wigner's friend
>>  
>> opens the cat box and that 
>> 
>> collapses
>>  
>> the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend
>>  
>> now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend
>>  
>> is also in a box and Wigner
>>  
>> himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's box his 
>> friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a live cat state".  
>> And of course you could put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside 
>> it and you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until the 
>> entire universe is included, and that is why the Copenhagen
>>  
>> interpretation is useless if you're 
>> interest is in 
>> dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside 
>> to
>>  universe observe it.
>>
>>  And God 
>> is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's wave function, 
>> and even then there would be another unanswered question too obvious to 
>> mention.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
> *Not a problem. Easily solved. Remember; a superposition of states only 
> exists for isolated systems, and the measurement, collapse, or whatever you 
> want to call it, occurs when the isolated system interacts with the macro 
> environment, in this case when the box opens, or more generally when the 
> system interacts with a macro system called 'the measuring device'. The cat 
> problem is an idealized situation. In fact, one can never isolate a cat 
> from its environment, but this is irrelevant for the illustrative purpose 
> of Schrodinger's thought experiment. We don't understand the measurement 
> process, but this doesn't justify affirming Tegmark and going off into MWI 
> fantasies. I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological 
> status. Believing that it does has led us into fairy tale land. AG*
>

It is not that the wave function is not ontological, though in one sense it 
fails to be ontological in most standard meanings of that term. I don't 
think the wave function is completely epistemological either. It fails to 
fit completely into any existential category we try to cram it into. The 
quantum wave exhibits epistemic and ontic properties depending upon which 
interpretation you choose to look at it with. However, all interpretations 
have holes or problems; none of them is complete and leave open problems. 
Most of these problems are with the interpretation of probabilities and 
Born's rule.

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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread agrayson2000

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> > 
>> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
>> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
>> when the box is opened. What am I missing?
>>
>
> 
> According to
>  
> Copenhagen
>  
> Wigner's friend
>  
> opens the cat box and that 
> 
> collapses
>  
> the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend
>  
> now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend
>  
> is also in a box and Wigner
>  
> himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's box his 
> friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a live cat state".  
> And of course you could put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside 
> it and you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until the 
> entire universe is included, and that is why the Copenhagen
>  
> interpretation is useless if you're 
> interest is in 
> dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside 
> to
>  universe observe it.
>
>  And God 
> is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's wave function, 
> and even then there would be another unanswered question too obvious to 
> mention.
>
>  John K Clark
>

*Not a problem. Easily solved. Remember; a superposition of states only 
exists for isolated systems, and the measurement, collapse, or whatever you 
want to call it, occurs when the isolated system interacts with the macro 
environment, in this case when the box opens, or more generally when the 
system interacts with a macro system called 'the measuring device'. The cat 
problem is an idealized situation. In fact, one can never isolate a cat 
from its environment, but this is irrelevant for the illustrative purpose 
of Schrodinger's thought experiment. We don't understand the measurement 
process, but this doesn't justify affirming Tegmark and going off into MWI 
fantasies. I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological 
status. Believing that it does has led us into fairy tale land. 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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

I think this illustrates how an observation is one a deep level a sort of 
self-observation or about a set of quantum numbers that encode themselves. 
For this reason there is then no complete and consistent way of reconciling 
the quantum and classical worlds with each other according to quantum 
postulates. For this reason there are these various quantum interpretations 
with a range of strengths and weaknesses that are not consistent with each 
other. We might think of these as something we intend to make quantum 
mechanics more complete, but we then end up with various drafts of extended 
QM that are not consistent with each other. 

LC

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> > 
>> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
>> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
>> when the box is opened. What am I missing?
>>
>
> 
> According to
>  
> Copenhagen
>  
> Wigner's friend
>  
> opens the cat box and that 
> 
> collapses
>  
> the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend
>  
> now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend
>  
> is also in a box and Wigner
>  
> himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's box his 
> friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a live cat state".  
> And of course you could put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside 
> it and you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until the 
> entire universe is included, and that is why the Copenhagen
>  
> interpretation is useless if you're 
> interest is in 
> dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside 
> to
>  universe observe it.
>
>  And God 
> is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's wave function, 
> and even then there would be another unanswered question too obvious to 
> mention.
>
>  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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,  wrote:

> 
> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen.
> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is
> when the box is opened. What am I missing?
>

According to

Copenhagen

Wigner's friend

opens the cat box and that

collapses

the cat's wave function, and so Wigner's friend

now knows the cat's fate, but Wigner's friend

is also in a box and Wigner

himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's box his
friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a live cat state".
And of course you could put Wigner himself in a box with somebody outside
it and you could keep increasing the number of nested boxes until the
entire universe is included, and that is why the Copenhagen

interpretation is useless if you're
interest is in 
dealing in cosmology because there is nobody outside
to
 universe observe it.

 And God
is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses God's wave function,
and even then there would be another unanswered question too obvious to
mention.

 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: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell



On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:47:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
>>> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
>>> when the box is opened. What am I missing? The issue of the cat's memory is 
>>> a different matter, problematic IMO. AG *
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> The problem is according to the CI, an isolated system evolves according 
>> to the Shrodinger equation, and therefore does not collapse.  But it also 
>> says observation causes collapse. 
>>
>>
>> That is not CI.  CI always supposed there is a classical realm in which 
>> measurements and observations were made by classical devices.  Wigner toyed 
>> with the idea that consciousness was required, but that was never Bohr's 
>> idea of CI.  In a sense, decoherence filled in CI by providing the 
>> mechanism of collapse.
>>
>>
>> I would say that decoherence explains the illusion of a collapse in the 
>> mind of the machine keeping a diary of the results of measurement. 
>> Decoherence is relative entanglement, and the tracing-out by the relative 
>> observers.
>>
>> The decoherence theory explains that the universe differentiation is 
>> quite speedy, and why macroscopic coherence is hard to be maintained, 
>> although possible for some material, and quantum topology promises 
>> theoretically possible "solid" qubit, etc. Like you said; it is only a 
>> matter or isolation. Now, the lack of isolation makes coherence easy lost, 
>> but that means only the quasi-irreversible lack of interference with some 
>> terms of the universal wave, not their genuine disappearance, which would 
>> contradict linearity, unitarity, well, the SWE-or DIRAC-or Feynman.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
A small correction below in red font.

LC
 

>
> You wrote a part on this with respect to Godel's theorem a few weeks ago, 
> which I lost in the huge sea of posts on this thread. I was going to 
> respond but lost the post. 
>
> Quantum mechanics is independent of measurement. Quantum amplitudes evolve 
> by unitarity or Schrodinger type of evolution and this is perfectly 
> deterministic. Once one throws a measurement or decoherence into picture 
> things become less clear. We might then invoke Kant's *noumena* and 
> *phenomena* as a way of thinking about this. Decoherence is just a way of 
> looking at what happens to a quantum wave that is disturbed by the 
> environment, which can include a laboratory measurement. Given that an 
> optical photon is about .1eV in energy a 100 watt light source produces 
> then around 10^{22} photons every second, which in the Fermi golden rule 
> are emitted by spontaneous emission and thus their wave functions are 
> decoherent. This is a numerically massive process in the universe at large. 
> We have these various interpretations of what happens with these decoherent 
> events, which are described phenomenologically. These various 
> interpretations are putative noumena for the processes of decoherence or 
> measurement.
>
> If we think of a measurement as a large system with many quantum states, 
> say a mole ~ 6x10^{23} of states, that couples to a system with a small 
> number of states. In a measurement the large number of states produce a 
> classical(like) outcome for the occurrence of the small number of states. 
> The process appears to involve a type of self reference as well as the 
> necessity for einselected quantum states (Zurek etc) that define a 
> classically stable needle state and its outcome. The process appears to 
> require that states involved with the needle state encode quantum numbers 
> as Godel numbers, which in general leads to a breakdown of computability. 
> The quantum classical dichotomy here may reflect a sort of axiomatic 
> incompleteness; the physical axioms of quantum mechanics are unable to 
> compute how a macroscopic outcome, such as a needle state or a particular 
> state in a decoherent set occurs. 
>
> I proposed something of this sort a long time ago, around the same time I 
> illustrated how the Schild's ladder in general relativity and quantum spins 
> had the same Galois field representation. In the latter case I got a muted 
> response, and of course now the idea general relativity and quantum 
> mechanics are categorically equivalent is a hot topic. The idea that 
> quantum outcomes are not computed by quantum evolution, say the quantum 
> computer executing operations on qubits, was met by horror. "Oh the 
> humanity" and so forth was sounded. However, it seems plausible to me to 
> this day that all we can ever have is phenomenology on this, but we will 
> never understand the noumena according to some set of postulates or 
> physical axioms that are complete and consistent in QM. If GR = QM in 
>

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

2017-12-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. 
>> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is 
>> when the box is opened. What am I missing? The issue of the cat's memory is 
>> a different matter, problematic IMO. AG *
>>  
>>
>
> The problem is according to the CI, an isolated system evolves according 
> to the Shrodinger equation, and therefore does not collapse.  But it also 
> says observation causes collapse. 
>
>
> That is not CI.  CI always supposed there is a classical realm in which 
> measurements and observations were made by classical devices.  Wigner toyed 
> with the idea that consciousness was required, but that was never Bohr's 
> idea of CI.  In a sense, decoherence filled in CI by providing the 
> mechanism of collapse.
>
>
> I would say that decoherence explains the illusion of a collapse in the 
> mind of the machine keeping a diary of the results of measurement. 
> Decoherence is relative entanglement, and the tracing-out by the relative 
> observers.
>
> The decoherence theory explains that the universe differentiation is quite 
> speedy, and why macroscopic coherence is hard to be maintained, although 
> possible for some material, and quantum topology promises theoretically 
> possible "solid" qubit, etc. Like you said; it is only a matter or 
> isolation. Now, the lack of isolation makes coherence easy lost, but that 
> means only the quasi-irreversible lack of interference with some terms of 
> the universal wave, not their genuine disappearance, which would contradict 
> linearity, unitarity, well, the SWE-or DIRAC-or Feynman.
>
> Bruno
>

You wrote a part on this with respect to Godel's theorem a few weeks ago, 
which I lost in the huge sea of posts on this thread. I was going to 
respond but lost the post. 

Quantum mechanics is independent of measurement. Quantum amplitudes evolve 
by unitarity or Schrodinger type of evolution and this is perfectly 
deterministic. Once one throws a measurement or decoherence into picture 
things become less clear. We might then invoke Kant's *noumena* and 
*phenomena* as a way of thinking about this. Decoherence is just a way of 
looking at what happens to a quantum wave that is disturbed by the 
environment, which can include a laboratory measurement. Given that an 
optical photon is about .1eV in energy a 100 light source produces then 
around 10^{22} photons every second, which in the Fermi golden rule are 
emitted by spontaneous emission and thus their wave functions are 
decoherent. This is a numerically massive process in the universe at large. 
We have these various interpretations of what happens with these decoherent 
events, which are described phenomenologically. These various 
interpretations are putative noumena for the processes of decoherence or 
measurement.

If we think of a measurement as a large system with many quantum states, 
say a mole ~ 6x10^{23} of states, that couples to a system with a small 
number of states. In a measurement the large number of states produce a 
classical(like) outcome for the occurrence of the small number of states. 
The process appears to involve a type of self reference as well as the 
necessity for einselected quantum states (Zurek etc) that define a 
classically stable needle state and its outcome. The process appears to 
require that states involved with the needle state encode quantum numbers 
as Godel numbers, which in general leads to a breakdown of computability. 
The quantum classical dichotomy here may reflect a sort of axiomatic 
incompleteness; the physical axioms of quantum mechanics are unable to 
compute how a macroscopic outcome, such as a needle state or a particular 
state in a decoherent set occurs. 

I proposed something of this sort a long time ago, around the same time I 
illustrated how the Schild's ladder in general relativity and quantum spins 
had the same Galois field representation. In the latter case I got a muted 
response, and of course now the idea general relativity and quantum 
mechanics are categorically equivalent is a hot topic. The idea that 
quantum outcomes are not computed by quantum evolution, say the quantum 
computer executing operations on qubits, was met by horror. "Oh the 
humanity" and so forth was sounded. However, it seems plausible to me to 
this day that all we can ever have is phenomenology on this, but we will 
never understand the noumena according to some set of postulates or 
physical axioms that are complete and consistent in QM. If GR = QM in 
quantum gravity this has an impact there as well, in particular with the 
problem of the firewall.

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

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

16 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information