Re: Radioactive Decay States
On 6/23/2018 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis in which it is not a superposition. But in practice we don't know what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize the corresponding operator. That's why a photon passing thru Young's slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and passing thru slit 2. We know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2". We can write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing thru slit 2" and it's a coherent sum, i.e. a superposition of those two. Decoherence theory says that we can't construct an instrument which will measure "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2" because such an instrument would quickly decohere into one of the two stable states "passed thru 1" or "passed thru 2" and the interference pattern would not form (in repeated trials). I am glad that you seem to have finally got the point of the basis problem, Brent. Yeah, I understood we were talking past one another. You were considering changing to a different basis of measurement, not just expressing a measurement in a different basis. 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: Radioactive Decay States
On 6/23/2018 9:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse. Brent Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some professional "heavies" accept it? AG Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. Brent *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG * ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position simultaneously? AG* Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis in which it is not a superposition. * Can't any pure state be written as a superposition using another basis? AG* Sure. But in practice
Re: Radioactive Decay States
From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis in which it is not a superposition. But in practice we don't know what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize the corresponding operator. That's why a photon passing thru Young's slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and passing thru slit 2. We know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2". We can write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing thru slit 2" and it's a coherent sum, i.e. a superposition of those two. Decoherence theory says that we can't construct an instrument which will measure "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2" because such an instrument would quickly decohere into one of the two stable states "passed thru 1" or "passed thru 2" and the interference pattern would not form (in repeated trials). I am glad that you seem to have finally got the point of the basis problem, Brent. 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: Radioactive Decay States
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse. Brent >>> >>> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some >>> professional "heavies" accept it? AG >>> >>> >>> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has >>> been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is >>> not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B >> and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given >> this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition >> where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A >> could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or >> non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an >> unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two >> states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum >> superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the >> person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the >> root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG * >> > > ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems > the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, > inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position > simultaneously? AG* > > > Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and > there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis > in which it is not a superposition. > *Can't any pure state be written as a superposition using another basis? AG* > But in practice we don't know what that basis is and in general we cannot > physically realize the corresponding operator. That's why a photon passing > thru Young's slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 > and passing thru slit 2. We know how to create an operator that measures > "passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures > "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that > measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2". We can write down the wf in > the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing thru slit 2" and it's a > coherent sum, i.e. a superposition
Re: Radioactive Decay States
On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse. Brent Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some professional "heavies" accept it? AG Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. Brent *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG * ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position simultaneously? AG* Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis in which it is not a superposition. But in practice we don't know what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize the corresponding operator. That's why a photon passing thru Young's slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and passing thru slit 2. We know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2". We can write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing
Re: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of >>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead >>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed >>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those >>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of >>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in >>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a >>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a >>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to >>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence >>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of >>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence >>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, >>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These >>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of >>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of >>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of >>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this >>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of >>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to >>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to >>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, >>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to >>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes >>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * >>> >>> >>> If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism >>> solve the problem of wf collapse. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some >> professional "heavies" accept it? AG >> >> >> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been >> the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not >> widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. >> >> Brent >> > > *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B > and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given > this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition > where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A > could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or > non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an > unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two > states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum > superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the > person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the > root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG * > ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position 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: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of >> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead >> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed >> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those >> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of >> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in >> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a >> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a >> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to >> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence >> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of >> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence >> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, >> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These >> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of >> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of >> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of >> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this >> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of >> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to >> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to >> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, >> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to >> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes >> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * >> >> >> If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism >> solve the problem of wf collapse. >> >> Brent >> > > Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some > professional "heavies" accept it? AG > > > Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been > the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not > widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. > > Brent > *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? 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: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?
As LIGO increases its sensitivity it is entering a domain in which its instruments should be able to detect theorized ring down phase echoes (this is the very last portion of a merging event of massive bodies that produces a rapidly increasing frequency of waves that lead up to the moment of merging, as the two merging objects undergo a final increasingly tight cycle of rapidly narrowing orbits right before merging) This increased sensitivity shouldd enable it to discoverif these hypothetical echoes if they actually are being produced by the observed event. If such echoes are discovered in these signals that would have major implications for cosmology and would be evidence for the actual existence of wormholes in our universe. Quoting some selected paragraphs, from a Scientific American article: "When two wormholes collide, they could produce ripples in space-time that ricochet off themselves. Future instruments could detect these gravitational “echoes,” providing evidence that these hypothetical tunnels through space-time actually exist, a new paper suggests To resolve this so-called black hole information paradox, some physicists have suggested that event horizons don’t exist. Instead of abysses from which nothing can return, black holes actually could be a host of speculative black-hole-like objects that lack event horizons, such as boson stars, gravastars, fuzzballs and even wormholes, which were theorized by Albert Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen decades ago. In a 2016 study in the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists hypothesized that if two wormholes collided, they would produce gravitational waves very similar to those generated from merging black holes. The only difference in the signal would be in the last phase of the merger, called the ringdown, when the newly combined black hole or wormhole relaxes into its final state In the paper, published in January in the journal Physical Review D, the team of physicists from Belgium and Spain analyzed wormholes that rotate, which are more realistic than the non-spinning variety studied in the 2016 work. They calculated what the resulting gravitational-wave signal would look like if the wormholes merged. Because the strength of the signal drops during the ringdown, that section of the signal would be too weak for LIGO’s current configuration to detect. But that could change in the future, as researchers continue to upgrade and fine-tune the instrument, the researchers said. “By the time we are running at full design sensitivity, I believe it may be possible to resolve the ringdown phase where these echoes are predicted to be,” said Stuver, who’s also a member of the LIGO team." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Radioactive Decay States
On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse. Brent Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some professional "heavies" accept it? AG Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris Fuchs has been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. The interpretation is not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism. 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: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:43 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
>>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
>>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>>
>>
>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts
>> with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so,
>> what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>>
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with
> optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for
> making these sort of measurements and materials are such that one can
> pass
> photons through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in
> mirrored
> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there
> are
> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations
> on
> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
> geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>
*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
"little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists
of
orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities
of
the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the
MWI,
or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>>
>>> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you
>>> say is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ."
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> *My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I
>> don't believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create
>> Many Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do
>> you? I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector
>> spaces. Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions
>> aren't rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. AG*
>>
>
> There is no preferred basis in QM, and decoherence makes no reference to
> that. Einselection says there is some basis that is stable on a large scale
> for the emergence of classicality. This is not a well understood process.
> This is in some sense beyond QM or where QM is in some ways incomplete in
> its postulates or physical axioms.
>
> LC
>
*It comes to the
Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *A physical computation is required for a physical observer to get a > result, but that remains true when the physical computation + the observer > are themselves the product of a computation* > If both the physical computation and the observer are the product of some sort of mystical Platonic computation then why is it the observer’s responsibility to make the physical computation? And why does the observer get an erroneous answer if he makes a mistake in that physical calculation? The biggest question of all, without matter and the laws that govern how it interacts how does Plato determine the difference between a correct calculation and a incorrect calculation? I know its against your nature but when answering these questions please don't start talking about the term "definition” because that is a human invention that can not magically conjure things into existence. And you need to explain why out of the infinite number of possible definitions there is something special about the particular one that you picked that has nothing to do with physics. We’ve known for more than a century that with p-adic numbers there are an infinite number of ways arithmetic could work and all of them are logically consistent, but they all give radically different answers from the arithmetic we find most useful in our physical world. For example, in 10-adic arithmetic the numbers 4739 and 5739 differ by only one part in a thousand and 72,694,473 and 82,694,473 differ by only one part in 10 million. But p-adic arithmetic won’t help you much if you’re trying to figure out how fast a ball rolling down an inclined plane will go. 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: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:43 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts
> with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so,
> what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>
Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with
optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for
making these sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass
photons through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in
mirrored
cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there
are
procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on
and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
geometry of your detectors.
LC
>>>
>>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
>>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
>>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
>>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
>>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
>>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
>>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
>>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
>>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
>>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
>>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
>>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
>>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
>>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
>>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
>>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
>>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
>>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
>>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
>>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
>>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
>>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI,
>>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
>>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
>>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>>
>>
>> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you
>> say is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ."
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I
> don't believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create
> Many Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do
> you? I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector
> spaces. Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions
> aren't rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. AG*
>
There is no preferred basis in QM, and decoherence makes no reference to
that. Einselection says there is some basis that is stable on a large scale
for the emergence of classicality. This is not a well understood process.
This is in some sense beyond QM or where QM is in some ways incomplete in
its postulates or physical axioms.
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
Re: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>
Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts
with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so,
what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>>>
>>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical
>>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these
>>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons
>>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored
>>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
>>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
>>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
>>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are
>>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on
>>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
>>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
>>> geometry of your detectors.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI,
>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>
>
> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you say
> is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ."
>
> LC
>
*My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I don't
believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create Many
Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do you?
I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector spaces.
Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions aren't
rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. 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: Radioactive Decay States
On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>>
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>>>
>>
>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical
>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these
>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons
>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored
>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are
>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on
>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
>> geometry of your detectors.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI,
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>
You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you say
is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ."
LC
>
>
>>
>>>
LC
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed
> - undecayed? TIA, AG
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Radioactive Decay States
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of > states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead > simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed > simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those > "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of > other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in > its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a > natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to > Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence > theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of > virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence > doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, > apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These > considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of > states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of > orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of > the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this > interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of > providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to > one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to > leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, > or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to > above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes > exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * > > > If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism > solve the problem of wf collapse. > > Brent > Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some professional "heavies" accept 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: Radioactive Decay States
On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse. 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: Primary matter
On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more efficacious on all task, What is the added undecideable sentence implied by consciousness? “I am conscious”. What does that speed up? Does the speed up from adding an undeciable sentence suffer from Goodheart's curse? 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.
