Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving classical probabilities. Brent Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. I would expect any attempt at a TOE to at least do the above. It should also, of course, make unexpected and testable predictions. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options,
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one place in. Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental non-physical dimensionless information space. What we call space is actually networks of dimensional relationships between quantum events that emerge from those quantum events. Empty space is unobservable and therefore not a part of reality. All that is observable is events, in this case specifically the dimensional relationships between the participants in quantum events imposed by the conservation laws. But his occurs in logical (non-dimensional) computational space, not a physical dimensional space. So in the double slit experiment the actual events are the decoherences of the electrons with the screen which produce exact dimensional relationships. The apparent wave behavior of the electrons passing through the slits is a non-observable backward inference based on the wavefunction equations which are not electrons spread out in multiple locations in a pre-existing space but the mathematical equivalent probabilities of how space could dimensionalize when those electrons decohere. This is a subtle theory, and hopefully I can explain further if necessary, or you can read Part III of my book. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Liz, What I haven't deciphered in Lisi's theory is what its elementals are. He seems to have come up with a set of elemental particle properties that populate his E8 group exactly and completely but they do not all appear to be commonly recognized particle properties such as charges, spins, etc. Can anyone give me a list of what Lisi's group elements actually correspond to in particle physics? Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:23:07 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear. E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame. The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a single common event connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a single dimensionality. Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model. Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead). We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then dimensionally aligned by some shared event. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5,
Re: What are wavefunctions?
I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not sure however that explaining physical space as information space is ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the result is still that we are explaining a universe that we can never experience. Craig On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:19:47 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Most TOEs try to get space-time as emergent from something simpler. On 28 December 2013 17:43, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not sure however that explaining physical space as information space is ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the result is still that we are explaining a universe that we can never experience. Craig On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:19:47 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Craig, Yes, I'm proposing that spacetime emerges from quantum events. But your second question depends on this since if spacetime emerges from quantum events there can be no physical space since physical space is exactly what we agreed doesn't exist until it emerges from quantum events which are information space computations. And of course we can experience the universe, though only through our own filters. If we could have no knowledge of reality we could not function within it and could not exist. And our own mental world view is part of reality and we have direct knowledge of that part of reality... Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:43:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not sure however that explaining physical space as information space is ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the result is still that we are explaining a universe that we can never experience. Craig On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:19:47 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one place in. Then what is it interfering with if not itself? Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental non-physical dimensionless information space. What we call space is actually networks of dimensional relationships between quantum events that emerge from those quantum events. Empty space is unobservable and therefore not a part of reality. It has observable effects, such as the amount of delay it can introduce between the emission and reception of a photon that must travel through it. All that is observable is events, in this case specifically the dimensional relationships between the participants in quantum events imposed by the conservation laws. But his occurs in logical (non-dimensional) computational space, not a physical dimensional space. This is beginning to sound a lot like the UD. So in the double slit experiment the actual events are the decoherences of the electrons with the screen which produce exact dimensional relationships. The apparent wave behavior of the electrons passing through the slits is a non-observable backward inference based on the wavefunction equations which are not electrons spread out in multiple locations in a pre-existing space but the mathematical equivalent probabilities of how space could dimensionalize when those electrons decohere. This sounds a bit like the pilot-wave theory. This is a subtle theory, and hopefully I can explain further if necessary, or you can read Part III of my book. There is a comparison table of various interpretations of QM. I am curious how yours would appear if it were added to it: InterpretationAuthor(s)Deterministic?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism Wavefunction real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#OntologyUnique history?Hidden variables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory?Collapsing wavefunctions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapseObserver role?Local http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality_principle?Counterfactual definiteness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness? Universal wavefunction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction exists?Ensemble interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_InterpretationMax Born http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born, 1926AgnosticNoYesAgnosticNoNo NoNoNoCopenhagen interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanicsNiels Bohr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr, Werner Heisenberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg, 1927NoNo1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note1 YesNoYes2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note1 CausalNoNoNode Broglie–Bohm theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theoryLouis de Broglie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie, 1927,David Bohmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm, 1952YesYes3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note3 Yes4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note4 YesNoNoNoYesYesvon Neumann interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapseJohn von Neumann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann, 1932, John Archibald Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler, Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_WignerNoYesYesNoYesCausalNoNo YesQuantum logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logicGarrett Birkhoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Birkhoff, 1936Agnostic AgnosticYes5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note5 NoNoInterpretational6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note6 AgnosticNoNoMany-worlds interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretationHugh Everett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett, 1957YesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo YesPopper's interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_experiment [51]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-51Karl Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper, 1957[52]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#cite_note-52 NoYesYesYesNoNoYesYes13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#endnote_note13 NoTime-symmetric theoriesSatosi Watanabehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satosi_Watanabe, 1955YesYesYesYesNoNoYesNoYesStochastic interpretationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_interpretationEdward Nelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Nelson, 1966NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoMany-minds interpretation
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional interpretation? Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications. Interesting, do you have any sources you can point me to on this? Thanks, Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. That's not really true. If you look at the wikipedia table that you cited, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics you see that Popper's, time symmetric, many-minds, consistent histories, and the relational interpretation are all local, i.e. no FTL. To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However, keep in mind that all this computation takes place in this world, otherwise the processes could not interfere and converge to a (probable) answer. Brent However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear. If the appearance of space is emergent, then shouldn't the appearance of time be as well? E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame. Yes, the original EPR paper is what motivated Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen to propose there were hidden variables (which is what you propose above in saying the spin relation of the two particles is fixed when they are created). However, under Bell's modification to the EPR case, he found that supposing such hidden variables have a single definite state prior to measurement is impossible and cannot work. This becomes evident when you measure something such as the polarization of photons at angles other than 0, 45, or 90 degrees, where the agreements are 100%, 50%, and 0%. If instead, you measure at angles like 30%, you find the agreement is 75%, which is higher than is mathematically possible assuming the photons have single, pre-determined properties prior to the measurement. The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a single common event connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a single dimensionality. The only way the particles can have their properties determined at the time of creation, and remain compatible with Bell's theorem, is if the properties of the particles are in a mult-valued (superposed) state. Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model. This is exactly the case Bell's theorem applies to, the notion of single definite values prior to measurement. This is not clear from reading only about the EPR paradox, you need to read through Bell's paper (or the website I provided that gave a walk through of it). Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead). We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then dimensionally aligned by some shared event. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do,
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear. E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame. The problem is that when and become refer to a time dimension and, when the measurements are spacelike, there is no canonical ordering to the measurement events. The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their creation. That's a hidden variable which violation of Bell's inequality rules out unless the relationship is spacelike (i.e. FTL). It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a single common event connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a single dimensionality. Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model. Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead). We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then dimensionally aligned by some shared event. So there's a global time coordinate, but no global space coordinates? 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional interpretation? No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes one assumption. Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications. Interesting, do you have any sources you can point me to on this? I'd start with Time's arrow and Archimedes' point by Huw Price. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. That's not really true. If you look at the wikipedia table that you cited, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics you see that Popper's Popper's interpretation uses hidden variables, and hence is ruled out by Bell's theorem. It also predicts that FTL signaling of information should be possible. , time symmetric, I couldn't find much information about Satosi Watanabe's theory, from the table it also appears to have hidden variables. Also, if it is both deterministic, and the universal wave function is real, I don't see how under QM this can lead to a unique history. (as the table indicates). Do you understand how this can be? many-minds, Zeh's many-minds, like many-worlds, suggests there is no unique history. E.g., there are multiple outcomes for each measurement. consistent histories, James Hartle, who wrote a book about consistent histories with Gell-Mann, said that consistent histories is the same as many worlds ( http://onqm.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html ). and the relational interpretation The relational interpretation is agnostic on whether or not there is a unique history. Is this many-worlds in denial? It seems to allow one observer to be in a superposition, relative to another. This is an example of an observer in more than one state at a time, which of course leads to multiple-outcome measurements. are all local, i.e. no FTL. Yes, but it seems all local (and valid) interpretations of QM allow measurements to have more than one outcome. To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However, keep in mind that all this computation takes place in this world, otherwise the processes could not interfere and converge to a (probable) answer. The computation is occurring in a (temporarily) causally isolated system. It is debatable whether we can rightfully say it happens in any *particular *world. Jason However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional interpretation? No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes one assumption. What is that assumption that is removed? Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications. Interesting, do you have any sources you can point me to on this? I'd start with Time's arrow and Archimedes' point by Huw Price. Thanks. Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 19:37, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional interpretation? No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes one assumption. What is that assumption that is removed? That simple quantum events have a built in arrow of time. This assumption isn't in the physics, but it's usually in the minds of people when they try to explain EPR, for example, by saying that certain things can't happen without FTL signalling. Saying this assumes that the particles involved are constrained by what happened to them in the past, but not constrained by what will happen to them in the future. This is a very powerful assumption, built into our nature as macroscopic creatures who are (unfortunately) all too susceptible to the effects of the entropy gradient - but there is no reason it should apply to, for example, individual photons. Assuming that photons act like people as far as the arrow of time goes skews our ideas of what is reasonable behaviour for quantum systems, and (according to Prof Price and others) leads us to see lots of things as weird / spooky when they are actually merely exhibiting the time symmetry inherent in the laws of physics. If we allow past *and* future constraints to affect particles, for example, any need for FTL effects to explain EPR vanishes, because all the information involved is carried by the particles themselves, which of course never travel FTL. It just happens to be carried in both time directions, with the photon's state in mid-flight affected by both the event that generated it in the past and the measurement that will be applied to it in the future. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
