Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/11/2017 1:18 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:32 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined. > There is no collapse, many worlds is assumed throughout. Alice splits > according to her measurement result. Both copies of Alice go to meet

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote: On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote: On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: >> >> ​> > ​>> ​ >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: ​> ​>> ​ ​ What is your definition

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote ​ >> >> ​> ​ >>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >>> >> >> ​ >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote > ​ > > ​> ​ >> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >> > > ​ > You can't have the MWI without the Multiverse, and if there is a > Multiverse then the MWI

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​>> ​ ​ What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >>> ​>> ​ >>> Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:01 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > How is everything except one value in this world (the others dissipating > into the environment), WORSE than conjuring a multitude of universes for > the other values to be measured? > ​One theory makes an assumption and the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 5:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, wrote: * ​> ​ If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, > wrote: > > *​> ​If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not >> just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, wrote: *​> ​If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not > just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into > the environment as I think Decoherence theory postulates? MWI doesn't tell >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/11/2017 10:01 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: ​> >>> ​>> ​ >>> ​ >>> What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >> >> ​>> ​ >> Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it doesn't exist >> in any one definite state.​ >> >> ​ >> > > ​> ​ > You have to be

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has ever

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has ever produced a valid argument as to how many

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 4:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not conserved; he has not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >> >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is your definition of non-realistic? >> > > Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it doesn't exist > in any one

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: In

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance"

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/11/2017 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/11/2017 4:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which world you're in. If

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not conserved; he has not shown how he can do this. If it is simply that you

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which world you're in. If that means anything at all, it is still

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > What is your definition of non-realistic? > Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it doesn't exist in any one definite state.​ ​ A photon ​hits a horizontally polarizing filter and the universe splits in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why observation effects things. ​ ​ > ​ Not to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 2:14 AM, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which world you're in. If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno has to rule out

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process? >> > > ​You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its determining if

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why observation effects

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process? > ​You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is violated, and we now know from experiment that it is, and if that unknown process

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why observation effects things. ​ ​ > ​ Not to split hairs,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 10:34:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why >>> observation effects things. ​ >>> >> >> ​> ​ >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why >> observation effects things. ​ >> > > ​> ​ > Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get in quantum measurements, > and how

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:46 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, wrote: > > ​> ​ >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, >> > > ​That's not the measurement problem, its

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict > exact outcomes, > ​That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why observation effects things. ​ ​> ​ > thus making QM a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Nov 2017, at 16:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict exact outcomes, ? Quantum Mechanics would be refuted (with or without wave packet reduction). thus making QM a deterministic theory, You mean

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Already, people like Omnes regard it as a non-problem because decoherence diagonalizes the density matrix FAPP and so it can be interpreted as being the same as a mixed state, which is how classical probability is represented in QM.  But others say FAPP isn't good enough because (1) in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

How would you define "the measurement problem" to conclude that strictly diagonalizing the density matrix would be a solution? TIA On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic > subquantum

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic subquantum dynamics.  If you could show that the density matrix becomes strictly diagonal in some non-arbitrary way (i.e. described by dynamics) and the eigenvalues obey the Born rule (which I think would follow from Gleason's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

If what you state is correct, then there's no solution to the measurement problem (if that means discovering a deterministic outcome for individual trials). Why then is the "measurement problem" still considered a problem to be solved? What you've presented is more or less proof that no such

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

It would make it possible to use EPR like experiments to send signals faster than light...which is to say backward in time.  That would pretty much screw up all known physics...and common sense. Brent On 11/9/2017 7:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the measurement problem were solved

Consistency of Postulates of QM

If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an INCONSISTENCY in the postulates of QM? TIA. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

<    2   3   4   5   6   7