Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, 
> > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, 
> > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   No. I am asserting that the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. Although I have asked several times, no 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one here seems able to offer a plausible 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition of states, is physically in all 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the system is measured. If we go back to those 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little pointing things, you will see there exists 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vector in that linear vector space. For 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quantum systems, there is no unique basis, and in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the interpretation is not justified. AG 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper, but that did not have much meaning 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (operationally, physically).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we say that the observable, in a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition state, has a ***DEFINITE*** value 
> > > > > > > > > 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:28:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 7:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
>> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
>> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
>> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
>> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
>> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
>> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
>> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
>> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
>> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
>> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
>> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
>> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
>> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
>> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
>> system. *
>>
>>
>> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>>
>
>
> *The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little 
> sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in 
> the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component 
> states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG *
>
>
> Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states.  His description 
> is completely arbitrary and applies to any states.  Does it make little 
> sense to single out North and East directions?  After all there are 
> infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used.
>

*Correct, but in his comment he's used the Up / Dn state of a SG experiment 
as an example.  But if there are infinitely many other coordinate systems 
-- which of course I am not disputing -- why assert any system described as 
a superposition in any particular basis, is physically in any, or all of 
the component states simultaneously? AG*

>
> Brent
>
>
>> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
>> "argument" in favor of simultaneity*
>>
>>
>> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
>> unclear.
>>
>> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
>> assertion. AG*
>>
>>
>> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
>> don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
>> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:24:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 6:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>
>>
>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>> directly measure C and always get c, 
>>
>
>
> *Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C is 
> not an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why do you 
> assert it is a superposition? AG *
>
>
> You just don't get it.  c is the eigenvalue of C.  C is an eigenstate.  
>

*Don't underestimate. Yes, if one gets c, c must be an eigenvalue of 
operator C.  AG*

BUT it's also a superposition of A and B.  It's a simple fact of vector 
> spaces that a vector can be the sum of other vectors.  The only thing 
> tricky about QM is that it's in a complex vector space so the vectors get 
> scaled by complex instead of real numbers.  And they are *simulataneously 
> *the sum of other vectors.
>

*The complex scalar field is not a problem; not even tricky. But a 
superposition does not necessarily mean the system is physically in both 
component states simultaneously, even if someone writes the state as a sum. 
That's what's assumed, without proof. Maybe I missed your proof or 
argument. AG*

>
> Brent
>
>  
>
>> but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c and 
>> then you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest example is SG 
>> measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin UP can be measured 
>> left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured 
>> up/down and you always get UP.  Any particular  orientation can be 
>> *written* as a superposition of two orthogonal states.  
>>
>
> *I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
> measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn.  In 
> any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*
>
>>
>> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
>> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
>> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
>> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
>> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>>
>
> *I'm OK with superpositions, only their interpretation of simultaneity of 
> component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and represent the situation 
> before measurement as a superposition and calculate probabilities, but the 
> assumption of simultaneity seems unsupported and produces apparent 
> paradoxes. AG *
>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
>> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
>> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
>> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
>> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
>> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
>> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
>> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
>> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
>> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
>> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
>> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
>> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
>> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
>> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
>> system. *
>>
>>
>> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>>
>> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
>> "argument" in favor of simultaneity*
>>
>>
>> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
>> unclear.
>>
>
> *Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? *
>
>
> It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely many 
> possible basis.  Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while true it 
> does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact about all 
> vector spaces.  Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical victory by 
> pointing out an absurdity.
>

*When I get no response, I assume I am not understood, or my point was not 
well written. Moreover, I have stated several times that given the plethora 
of bases, it makes no sense to single out a single basis and assert the 
state of a system is simultaneously in the component states. AG *

>
> *Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few messages 
> above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, 
> you will see he essentially says the two states in the superposition he 
> uses for an example, is tantamount to simultaneous.  Here it is: *
>
> *It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar 
> relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we 
> can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.*
>
> *The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
> states. **AG*
>
>
> No.  It would be the UP state.
>

*I think you're misreading Dirac's comment, which isn't clear, unless he's 
referring to a change of basis. That would mean that when we measure Up, 
the system remains in the superposed Up and Dn state. AG*

>
>> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
>> assertion. AG*
>>
>>
>> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
>> don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
>> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>>
>
>
> *Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited 
> time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and 
> paste your reference above. AG *
>
>
> Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols.  Just go to 
>
>
> http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf
>
> and scroll down the relevant pages.  It doesn't take more than 10sec.
>
> Brent
>

*Thanks. Time's nearly up here. Will do it tomorrow. AG *

>
>
>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 7:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a
vector in a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors
in some orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum
superposition of course, but worth thinking about. How many
decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the original
orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT
decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define
another uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a
DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to
say the original vector is in two states simultaneously in some
basis, when an uncountable set of other bases exist, each with a
different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it is natural and
convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which the system
is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which allow
other, different, decompositions of the system into
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on
the system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?


*The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes 
little sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and 
convenient (say, in the basis being measured), and assert the system 
is in both component states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG

*


Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states.  His 
description is completely arbitrary and applies to any states.  Does it 
make little sense to single out North and East directions?  After all 
there are infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used.


Brent




*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant
is unclear.


*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context,
why don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum
Theory: Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117

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.


--
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

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 6:50 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a
coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's
raise the level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no
intermediate result when the system is in a superposition of
states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key question: why does this
imply the system is in states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the
measurement? AG *


Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a
direct measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such
that you can directly measure C and always get c,


*Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C 
is not an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why 
do you assert it is a superposition? AG

*


You just don't get it.  c is the eigenvalue of C.  C is an eigenstate.  
BUT it's also a superposition of A and B.  It's a simple fact of vector 
spaces that a vector can be the sum of other vectors.  The only thing 
tricky about QM is that it's in a complex vector space so the vectors 
get scaled by complex instead of real numbers.  And they are 
/*simulataneously */the sum of other vectors.


Brent


but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c
and then you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest
example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where
spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at
random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any
particular  orientation can be /written/ as a superposition of two
orthogonal states.


*I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn. 
In any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*



This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a
superposition of states in some other basis.  But it is not
generally true that we can prepare or directly measure a system in
any given state.  So those states we can't directly access, we
tend to think of them as existing only as superpositions of states
we can prepare.


*I'm OK with superpositions, only their_interpretation_ of 
simultaneity of component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and 
represent the situation before measurement as a superposition and 
calculate probabilities, but the assumption of simultaneity seems 
unsupported and produces apparent paradoxes. AG *



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.


--
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

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a
vector in a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors
in some orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum
superposition of course, but worth thinking about. How many
decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the original
orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT
decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define
another uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a
DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to
say the original vector is in two states simultaneously in some
basis, when an uncountable set of other bases exist, each with a
different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it is natural and
convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which the system
is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which allow
other, different, decompositions of the system into
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on
the system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?


*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant
is unclear.

*
*
*Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? *


It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely 
many possible basis.  Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while 
true it does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact 
about all vector spaces.  Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical 
victory by pointing out an absurdity.


*Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few 
messages above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment 
reproduced in Wiki, you will see he essentially says the two states in 
the superposition he uses for an example, is tantamount to 
simultaneous.  Here it is: *


*_It requires us to assume that between these states there exist 
peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in 
one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more 
other states._*

*_
_*
*The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
states.**AG*


No.  It would be the UP state.




*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context,
why don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum
Theory: Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117


*Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited 
time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please 
copy and paste your reference above. AG

*


Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols.  Just go to

http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf

and scroll down the relevant pages.  It doesn't take more than 10sec.

Brent




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.


--
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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
> system. *
>
>
> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>

*The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little 
sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in 
the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component 
states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG *

>
> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his "argument" 
> in favor of simultaneity*
>
>
> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
> unclear.
>
> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
> assertion. AG*
>
>
> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why don't 
> you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: Concepts 
> and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>
> 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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>
>
> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
> directly measure C and always get c, 
>


*Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C is not 
an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why do you 
assert it is a superposition? AG*
 

> but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c and then 
> you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest example is SG 
> measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin UP can be measured 
> left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured 
> up/down and you always get UP.  Any particular  orientation can be 
> *written* as a superposition of two orthogonal states.  
>

*I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn.  In 
any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*

>
> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>

*I'm OK with superpositions, only their interpretation of simultaneity of 
component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and represent the situation 
before measurement as a superposition and calculate probabilities, but the 
assumption of simultaneity seems unsupported and produces apparent 
paradoxes. AG *

>
> 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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
> system. *
>
>
> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>
> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his "argument" 
> in favor of simultaneity*
>
>
> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
> unclear.
>

*Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? Is the intent to mock to support 
your thesis? If you look a few messages above, to where I underlined part 
of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, you will see he essentially says the 
two states in the superposition he uses for an example, is tantamount to 
simultaneous.  Here it is: *

*It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar 
relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we 
can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.*

*The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
states. **AG*

>
> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
> assertion. AG*
>
>
> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why don't 
> you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: Concepts 
> and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>

*Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited time 
until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and 
paste your reference above. AG *

>
> 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

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most 
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in 
a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some 
orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of 
course, but worth thinking about. How many decompositions are 
possible? Well, rotations of the original orthogonal basis give an 
uncountable number of DIFFERENT decompositions. In fact, the set of 
NON orthogonal pairs define another uncountable set of bases, each of 
which results in a DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it 
makes no sense to say the original vector is in two states 
simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable set of other bases 
exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it 
is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which 
the system is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which 
allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?

*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
unclear.


*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117


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

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
the level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate 
result when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. 
Nothing new here. Key question: why does this imply the system is in 
states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG *


Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or 
b at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom 
spin orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT 
or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get 
UP.  Any particular  orientation can be /written/ as a superposition of 
two orthogonal states.


This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those 
states we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing 
only as superpositions of states we can prepare.


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

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:01:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>>
>>
>> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>>
>>
>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>
>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>
>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>
>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>
>>
>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
>> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>
>>
>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
>> it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you 
>> are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
>> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
>> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
>> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
>> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
>> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
>> simultaneously in both. *
>>
>>
>> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
>> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
>> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
>> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
>> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
>> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>>
>> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
>> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
>> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
>> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
>> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>>
>>
>> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
>> calculation is the reality. 
>>
>>
>>
>> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
>> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
>> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
>> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
>> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
>> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>>
>>
>> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
>> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
>> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
>> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
>> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
>> silver atoms thru and SG in 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality. 
>
>
>
> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>
>
> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
> silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right persist, 
> they are up polarizations for example; and we know they exist because we 
> can prepare up states and then measure them left/right or measure them 
> up/down.  The