Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, 
but the whole point is that it does if you take into account all 
Alices and Bobs in the multiverse. QM explains why in all 
branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation of Bell’s 
inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous causality 
on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in 
the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the first 
person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural 
aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the 
sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p 
theories, not involving the role of the person in the picture.


In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum 
mechanics. You can believe anything you like about your own private 
theories, but you cannot expect others to join in. If we are 
talking about quantum mechanics, then it would be polite to stick 
to that theory.


I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the 
one seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with 
Alice having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in 
state d (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state u). That 
would contradict the rotational symmetry of the singlet state.


The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, 
ud+ du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not 
rotationally symmetric.


I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase 
e^i*theta.




You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- 
it is the same as in a collapse theory.


?

In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded 
in the single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is 
rotationally symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is 
destroyed as soon as the spin component of one particle is measured 
in a particular direction.


In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory 
of the observer (or the local environment containing the observer.


That is a remarkably silly thing to say. The only thing in this context 
that is rotationally symmetric is the singlet state itself. The 
laboratory in which it was prepared is not rotationally symmetric; the 
apparatus that prepared it is not rotationally symmetric; the technician 
who operated the preparation apparatus is not rotationally symmetric; 
the experimenter who measures it is not rotationally symmetric. So as 
soon as the singlet interacts with any of these things -- becomes 
entangled with a non-symmetric object -- then the rotational; symmetry 
of the state is lost. This is just elementary physics of symmetry 
principles.


Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see 
down ud


There, can't you see what you have just done? You have explicitly 
invoked a collapse! (And there is a sill typo in the last part of the 
equation -- it should read 'Alice see down du'. Alice can't see down 
from the ud component!)


But if we write this out a bit more explicitly so that the tensor 
product is evident (using Dirac notation) we have:


   |Alice> (|u>|d> - |d>|u>) --> |Alice sees up>|u>|d> - |Alice sees 
down>|d>|u>.


I have used the arrow (-->) to indicate that this step involves an 
interaction between the singlet and Alice and her apparatus -- which 
necessarily breaks the symmetry. (It is not actually an equality.) But  
you have collapsed the wave function in this step, because 'Alice sees 
up' only on the first half of the original wave function, so that Bob 
necessarily sees only the |u>|d> portion of the original symmetric state 
when Alice sees up -- he then necessarily gets the correlated (Bob sees 
down) result when Alice sees up (for aligned measurement axes). 
Similarly, in the second part of the equation, 'Alice sees down' 
collapses the wave function to the |d>|u> component, meaning that Bob 
necessarily sees only |u>.


This is the mistake that Price makes in his Q32 that you attached. I 
have pointed this out many times, but it seems to have passed you by. 
This builds in the non-local collapse of the original singlet wave 
function right at the start of your argument. You split the wave 
function following Alice's measurement so that Bob sees only the 
correlated part -- he doesn't see a non-collapse singlet state! The 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
equation help matters? Help, our specie in either engineering (building new 
stuff) or mentally? Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people 
gifted with tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure? I 
envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!) and just 
wanting to place this in my own mind, being, a witless, dirty fingered, 
dust-footed American peasant. All the best


Spud the peasant (grubby)





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 5:07 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker  wrote:


  




  

If the cat is  always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence 
times in  the context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But 
 if you insist on this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed   
   state, making the radioactive source, and so forth, also  mixed 
states? 
  


An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed becauseit 
is relatively isolated. 



An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it is 
relatively isolated FROM YOU.


If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, and 
explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact with the 
atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be contagious on 
your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” see the atom like 
it has deciphered and lost its means to show interferences. 


Bruno









 It doesn't radiate IR photons or haveother interactions with the 
environment.  Haven't you readSchlosshauer's paper yet?

Brent


  

AG


  


Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition
with the cat used as a starting point for yourdecoherence 
analysis doesn't exist as representinganything, it's baffling 
that any conclusions can bereached. OTOH, if the two component 
states are mixed,that's a fact that seems never in evidence, 
certainlynot in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG 


  
 
Brent
  



   

  
 

  

, you have  a two state system using the standard   
   interpretation of superposition, meaning the 
 system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
 mixed state. AG 

  

  



  Isn't this the standard interpretation of a
superposition of states? AG 


  

  

 

 
  
  

  
 
  

  

  
 

  

It doesn't go awaybecause the 
decoherence timeis exceedingly 
short. 
  


Yes is does go away.  Even light
can't travel the length of a cat in 
   a nano-second.  


  

And for this reason Istill conclude 
thatSchroedinger correctly  
  pointed out the fallacy in
the standard interpretation 
   of superposition; namely,
that the system representedby a 
superposition, is inall components 
statessimultaneously. AG 
  
  

 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds
>> violates the know laws of physics
>
>
>
> *>FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special
> Relativity.*
>

Yes but that doesn't matter because it doesn't violate Einstein's greatest
achievement General Relativity, the improved and far more comprehensive
Relativity theory he came up with 10 years after Special Relativity.


> *>It reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which
> makes few sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental
> violation, *
>

There is still no way to keep 2 clocks in synchronization unless you had a
continuous record of how much the 2 clocks were accelerating with respect
to each other and what sort of gravitational field they were in, and these
weird quantum correlations won't help. So I agree there is no instrumental
violation, but time is what clocks measure and if there is no way to keep
distant clocks in sync that randomly accelerate and decelerate then there
is no universal time .

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
> measurement angle.
 
 It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
 whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs 
 in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see 
 the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical 
 instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden 
 variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the 
 first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural aspect 
 (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de 
 Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not 
 involving the role of the person in the picture.
>>> 
>>> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. 
>>> You can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but you 
>>> cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum mechanics, 
>>> then it would be polite to stick to that theory.
>> 
>> I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
>> seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice having 
>> a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state d) 
>> with worlds with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob having the 
>> corresponding particle in state u). That would contradict the rotational 
>> symmetry of the singlet state.
> 
> The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, ud+ du, 
> is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not rotationally 
> symmetric.

I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase e^i*theta.


> 
> You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it is the 
> same as in a collapse theory.

?



> In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded in the 
> single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally 
> symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon as 
> the spin component of one particle is measured in a particular direction.

In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory of the 
observer (or the local environment containing the observer.

Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud
Bob(ud -du) = Bob ud - Bob du = Bob see down ud - Bob see up ud

Alice and Bob get their opposite spin, without transmission of action faster 
than light, still less instantaneous. 

If they measure in arbitrary direction, or the one to verify Bell’s inequality 
violation, the reasoning is more long, but see Price (below) for a good 
approximation.

If in some branches there has been a FTL action, you might need to explain to 
me how that is possible, and why to postulate this. It does not follow from EPR 
which assumes definite results for a measurement, where we get only definite 
result in the memory of the observer(s).




> The external magnet is not rotationally symmetric, so as soon as it interacts 
> with the singlet, the overall rotational symmetry is lost. That is surely 
> obvious.


The overall rotational symmetry is lost for the individual particles, but not 
for the state Alice + two particles (even if far apart). I mean the state 
(Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud)
 is still rotationally in variant.



> That is why I don't understand why you go on about infinities of Alice's and 
> Bob's who can measure in any direction continuing after the first measurement 
> interaction.

It only needs to the entanglement of the observers with the particles. No 
rotational symmetry is lost, except for the first person pop of the observer, 
but that is only because of their ignorance or abstraction from the real 
quantum state. You persist talking like if some collapse did occur after the 
measurement, but that never happens. So when we get (Alice see up ud - Alice 
see down ud), that is still equal to (Alice see up u’d' - Alice see down u’d’), 
as no collapse have occurred. We keep an infinity of worlds where Alice found 
always up, but with different spin direction. If the choice of direction was 
decided or not change nothing to this: because  (Alice see up ud - Alice see 
down ud) = e^i.theta (Alice see up u’d' - Alice see down u’d’), and the phase 
factor would not change the measurement that anyone could do in principle on 
the overall state (which would be technically difficult to here, but that is 
not relevant 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but 
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices 
and Bobs in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice 
and Bob will see the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this 
without any physical instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW 
theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. 
The MW theory is based on the first person indeterminacy, and 
illustrate the first person plural aspect (contagion of 
duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de Broglie, 
Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not involving 
the role of the person in the picture.


In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum 
mechanics. You can believe anything you like about your own private 
theories, but you cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking 
about quantum mechanics, then it would be polite to stick to that theory.


I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice 
having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in state 
d (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state u). That would 
contradict the rotational symmetry of the singlet state.


The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, 
ud+ du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not 
rotationally symmetric.


You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it 
is the same as in a collapse theory. In MWI you just retain all the 
branches, branches that are discarded in the single world theory. In 
both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally symmetric when prepared, 
but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon as the spin component 
of one particle is measured in a particular direction. The external 
magnet is not rotationally symmetric, so as soon as it interacts with 
the singlet, the overall rotational symmetry is lost. That is surely 
obvious. That is why I don't understand why you go on about infinities 
of Alice's and Bob's who can measure in any direction continuing after 
the first measurement interaction. The symmetry is lost, so there can 
only ever be four worlds: the uu, ud, du, dd, worlds that I have been 
mentioning all along. These are the worlds that survive from one 
measured singlet pair in MWI. Each branch of this can be considered a 
single world, and since the branches are disjoint, the relevant 
statistics must be separately satisfied in each such branch.


It is not actually very difficult to understand once you have broken the 
initial symmetry. A series of trials on such singlets will just lead to 
a branching tree of 2^N copies of matched Alices and Bobs. It is the 
fact that they always interact with the components of the same singlet 
state in each trial that keeps the worlds in order. But the measurements 
that each make are made non-locally. And the relative probabilities of 
their separate results (probabilities of the 'worlds' or 'branches') 
depend on the non-locally set relative orientation of their 
measurements. Bell's theorem is then just the observation that the 
observed correlations cannot be reproduced by a local hidden variables, 
such as would represent a 'common cause' that is carried along from the 
point of creation of the singlet. Bell's theorem applies to each branch 
in the many-worlds superposition and cannot be deflected by appeals to 
counterfactuals or any such irrelevance.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 3 agosto 2018 alle 0.56 Bruce Kellett  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >
> 
> > > On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent 
> > > Meeker < meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work 
> > > > for all choices of measurement angle.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and 
> > > Alice, but the whole point is that it does if you take into account all 
> > > Alices and Bobs in the multiverse.
> > > 
> > > > > Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  
> > > Aren't you assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of 
> > > Alices and Bobs before this experiment; not just the few cases that arise 
> > > from the different experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  
> > > there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 
> > > 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from this ensemble.
> > 
> > > Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that 
> > clearly doesn't work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of 
> > unmatched Alice's and Bob's, and a major problem with non-local influences 
> > between disjoint universes in order to match any pair up. I think one can 
> > rule any such idea out very much more simply by just following the 
> > particles from a single entangled state to the respective experimenters. 
> > The statistics must work for such single-world pairs, so the invocation of 
> > infinite numbers of this or that is not actually going to help.
> 
> Bruce
> 


LEV VAIDMAN, 'Teleportation: Dream or Reality?'

'Consider teleportation, say in the BBCJPW scheme. We perform some action in one

place and the state is immediately teleported, up a local transformation 
(“rotation”), to

an arbitrary distant location. But relativity theory teaches us that anything 
which is

physically significant cannot move faster than light. Thus it seems that it is 
the classical

information (which cannot be transmitted with superluminal velocity) about the 
kind of

back “rotation” to be performed for completing the teleportation which is the 
only essential

part of the quantum state. However, the amount of the required classical 
information

is very small. Is the essence of a state of a spin-1/2 particle just 2 bits?

I tend to attach a lot of physical meaning to a quantum state. For me, a 
proponent of

the MWI, everything is a quantum state. But I also believe in relativistic 
invariance, so

only entities which cannot move faster than light have physical reality. Thus, 
teleportation

poses a serious problem to my attitude. I was ready to admit that “I” am just a 
quantum

state of N ∼ 1030 particles. This is still a very rich structure: a complex 
function on RN.

But now I am forced to believe that “I” am just a point in the R2N ?!

The resolution which I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the 
MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local measurement 
of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state  by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to be transmitted for teleportation of a quantum state—the information which 
world we

need to split into, i.e., what transformation has to be applied—is much smaller 
than the

information which is needed for the creation of such a state. For example, for 
the case

of a spin-1/2 particle there are only 4 different worlds, so in order to 
teleport the state

we have to transmit just 2 bits.'

 













hich I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local 
measurement of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>>
You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and
you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years
away.  I flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of
heads and tails and then just one hour later you do the
same thing.


/
>
It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at
one location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds)
from the location they were created to Earth and Andromeda. 
It's because of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to
explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it would require
FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin./



I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference
between a communication and a influence and you're just changing
one apparently random sequence to a different apparently random
sequence and the only way to tell that something funney is going
on is when the two results are checked sinde by side which can
only be done at the speed of light or less. But if you want exact
then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin correlated
electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.


So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c, 
completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.


Yes, I had gathered that your idea was that there was a common cause 
effect in operation. That is just a standard hidden variable account. 
And that is what Bell's theorem rules out. No such local hidden variable 
theory can account for the observed correlations at all relative angles.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 00:56, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
>> On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >>> > wrote:
 
 
 Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
 measurement angle.
>>> 
>>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>>> the multiverse.
>> 
>> Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you assuming 
>> that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and Bobs before 
>> this experiment; not just the few cases that arise from the different 
>> experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  there are many Alices 
>> measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 27.5deg.  That's how you 
>> get statistics...from this ensemble.
> 
> Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that clearly doesn't 
> work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of unmatched Alice's 
> and Bob’s,

Only in different branches. In all branches their spin will match. Bob and 
Alice have no trans-branch interaction, which would introduce non linearity in 
the wave.




> and a major problem with non-local influences between disjoint universes in 
> order to match any pair up. I think one can rule any such idea out very much 
> more simply by just following the particles from a single entangled state to 
> the respective experimenters. The statistics must work for such single-world 
> pairs, so the invocation of infinite numbers of this or that is not actually 
> going to help.

The fact is that, experimentally and theoretically, a singlet state describe 
all spin result being accessible with equal probability. Its description in 
some special base is misleading here. 

Bruno




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:32, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 If the cat is always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence times in the 
 context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But if you insist on 
 this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed state, making the radioactive 
 source, and so forth, also mixed states?
>>> 
>>> An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because it is 
>>> relatively isolated. 
>> 
>> An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it 
>> is relatively isolated FROM YOU.
> 
> That seems to imply the many-minds interpretation. 

It is. 



> I'm saying the atom is isolated from anything thing that would record it's 
> decay (including the cat).  If you open the box and find the cat is dead and 
> cold, you know that the cat died hours ago.  It was not in a superposition up 
> until you opened the box.

If the atom is in a superposition state, it will always remains in a 
superposition state like all atoms with which the atom will interact, including 
the cat, and including me when I will look at the cat. The linear contagion of 
the superposition happen to interaction. If the box in which the cat belong is 
well isolated, the cat superposition will not be lift to me. In practice, that 
is not possible, because we cannot isolate an object as complex as a 
macroscopic box, today at least.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, 
>> and explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact 
>> with the atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be 
>> contagious on your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” 
>> see the atom like it has deciphered and lost its means to show 
>> interferences. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It doesn't radiate IR photons or have other interactions with the 
>>> environment.  Haven't you read Schlosshauer's paper yet?
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 AG
 
 Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition with the cat used as 
 a starting point for your decoherence analysis doesn't exist as 
 representing anything, it's baffling that any conclusions can be reached. 
 OTOH, if the two component states are mixed, that's a fact that seems 
 never in evidence, certainly not in what I have read about decoherence 
 theory. AG 
 
 Brent
 
  
 
 , you have a two state system using the standard interpretation of 
 superposition, meaning the system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
 mixed state. AG 
 
 Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition of states? AG 
 
 
 
 It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
 
 Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
 nano-second.  
 
 And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
 out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
 that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components 
 states simultaneously. AG 
 
 It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
 objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
 
 Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
 system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
 interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG 
 
 ?? Any system can be mathematically represented as being in a 
 superposition of different basis states.  It's just a consequence of being 
 a vector in a vector space.  Any vector can be written as a sum of other 
 vectors. 
 
 OK, never had a problem with this. AG
  
 Your use of the words  "interpreted" and "this interpretation" is unclear.
  
 I am using those words as I think Schroedinger did, where he assumes a 
 system in a superposition of states, is in all component states 
 simultaneously. It is from that assumption, or interpretation, that he 
 finds the contradiction or absurdity of a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously. AG
  
 
 ...
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 .
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
>  
> >> the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and 
> >> the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than 
> >> light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my 
> >> magnet to there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if 
> >> I pick a number at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron 
> >> goes through and you also pick a number at random, Y, and set your 
> >> magnet to it then the probability your electron will make it through 
> >> your filter is   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your 
> >> magnet is 30 degrees different from mine the value of  the expression 
> >> is  .75,   so there is a 75% probability your electron will make it 
> >> through your 
> >> magnet, and if you happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 
> >> 100% chance your electron will make it through and if the angle 
> >> difference is 90 degrees there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron 
> >> knew what angle I randomly set my magnet to much faster than light 
> >> because until we check results side by side (which can only be done at 
> >> the speed of light or less) both records of electron that passes 
> >> through and failed to look completely random, but its certainly weird. 
> >>  
> 
> > The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin 
> > vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization 
> > I agree with the statistics given above.
> Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a 
> unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done 
> with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle 
> will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the 
> magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum 
> correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance 
> the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is 
> that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I 
> could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's 
> brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call   
> "up" even though they are now 2 million light 
> years away and the brothers were last in physical contact with each other 
> a million years before I was born.
 
 
 
 But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The 
 ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The 
 singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
 spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in 
 which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice 
 measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she 
 knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result.  
 With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but 
 with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
>>> measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>> the multiverse.
> 
> Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you assuming 
> that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and Bobs before 
> this experiment; not just the few cases that arise from the different 
> experimental results.

Yes, like David Deutsch … and Everett. If Alice and Bob share many similar 
singlet, each of them have the same probability of finding any spin. They are 
both maximally ignorant of the state of the particles, and that is translated 
into the fact that they are distributed on all worlds with spin in all 
direction (one by world of course). 




>   In this plethora of universes  there are many Alices measuring along 0deg 
> and many Bobs measuring along 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from 
> this ensemble.

Yes.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation of 
>> Bell’s inequality, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> Not necessarily. The WM-duplication, like Everett QM,  illustrates that 
>> sometimes two events can be realised from a third person pod, yet only one 
>> event is realised from the observer’s pov, and that brings back a notion of 
>> first person indeterminacy, and notions of local probabilities, 
>> credibilities, plausibilities, etc.
> 
> But now you've invoked an ensemble of observers to go with the ensemble of 
> events and you've done nothing to solve the problem. And don't tell me the 
> observers will be "weighted".  That doesn't mean anything either.  The whole 
> point of physicists wanting an ensemble was so that they could explain 
> probabilities by counting cases.  "Weights" just obfuscate the problem.  If 
> we want to use weights we can assign a weight of 1.0 to the thing observed 
> and weight 0 to the rest.


By weight I meant the counting, well, the masure on some continuum, provided by 
the unique measure, provided by Gleason theorem, or its hopeful equivalent in 
arithmetic.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 16:38, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally 
> >>done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle 
> >>will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the 
> >>magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum 
> >>correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance 
> >>the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is 
> >>that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I 
> >>could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's 
> >>brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" 
> >>even though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were 
> >>last in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.
> 
>  >this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The ud - 
> du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The singlet 
> state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
> spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in which 
> direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice measure 
> her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she knows that 
> if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result. With one 
> unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence,
> 
> I don't have any big disagreement with that.


OK. It looks like Bruce disagree with this, but I am not sure why or how.


>  
> >but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case. The same 
> >for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the wave, but 
> >the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is violated, and 
> >if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in FTL, but if 
> >they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to invoke any FTL. 
> 
> The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds 
> violates the know laws of physics


FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special Relativity. It 
reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which makes few 
sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental violation, but that 
is the case of the fact earth theory too. 



> and both theories agree with all known experimental results equally well, so 
> how can one decide which one is correct? Until we get better data from some 
> new astronomical observation or exparament it all comes down to personal 
> incredulity; both you and I feel that although strange Many Worlds is less 
> strange than the alternatives, but others may feel differently. And who knows 
> maybe they're right, I doubt it but I've been wrong before.


In science, we can always been wrong. But some theories can be more plausible 
than other. I would say that any theory which introduce 3p indeterminacy and 3p 
physical FTL is less plausible than a theory which manages to make the same 
predictions (including the violation of Bell’s inequality) without introducing 
3p indeterminacy and non locality without any means to test it. 

Bruno

> 
>  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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:32, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> 
> No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse yourself 
> by continuing to claim such things which are not part of quantum 
> mechanics.
 
 
  The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result when 
 coming back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and Bob are 
 space separated, I do not see how to give meaning to “to be in the same 
 branche”, and they might individually get non correlated spin measurement?
>>> 
>>> It is easy to see how they can be in the same branch, even if space-like 
>>> separated. I gave an account of how all measurements are made in the same 
>>> branch by starting with the time when Alice and Bob meet to compare notes 
>>> after their series of experiments and working backwards to show that, since 
>>> neither can jump between branches, all measurements must have been made in 
>>> the same branch.
>>> 
>>> You can do the same thing in the forwards time direction by considering 
>>> that the singlet is prepared in one world.
>> 
>> I cannot make sense of this. Preparing a singlet state is typically done in 
>> an infinity of “worlds” (or some very big numbers of worlds in some version 
>> of quantum gravity, but for simplicity I assume just “classical” QM). 
> 
> It makes perfect sense if you do proper quantum theory. There is no "infinity 
> of worlds". As I have said, that is your private misconception. As above, it 
> serves only to confuse both you and the issue.
> 
>> I have to go. Will read the sequel later. But it seems to me that you 
>> constantly postulate a collapse. The notion of singlet state is typically a 
>> many-world construction, even in Copenhagen before the 
>> "measurement/collapse”. 
> 
> You continue to confuse the rotational symmetry of the state with some 
> "many-worlds" conception. That is a mistake.


No, it is the only many-world interpretation of the singlet state. Alice has a 
the same probability of find u, u’ or whatever spin when she measure her 
particle.

The way you interpret the singlet state seems incorrect to me.




> And until you can rid yourself of this misconception you will never make any 
> progress. Sorry if  this seems patronizing, but you need to get these things 
> right.


Could you explain how you would interpret the singlet state in the MW theory?

Bruno





> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
>>> measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>> the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the 
>> violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous 
>> causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in 
>> the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the first person 
>> indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural aspect (contagion of 
>> duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or 
>> Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not involving the role of the 
>> person in the picture.
> 
> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. You 
> can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but you cannot 
> expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum mechanics, then it 
> would be polite to stick to that theory.

I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one seeming 
to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice having a particle 
in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state d) with worlds 
with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state u). That would contradict the rotational symmetry of the 
singlet state.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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.