Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:25:59 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir > ha > scritto: > > Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in > mind. > > “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives > but *all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir ha scritto: Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in mind. “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Dec 2017, at 02:31, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:20:27 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 25 Dec 2017, at 21:41, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which I > believe

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:44:42 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be > confused > > > with the operator by the same name that preserves

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:41:35PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > *Spin measurements are irreversible in principle, not simply FAPP. Bruce > showed that on Avoid2 IIRC. I think this means the measurement process,at > least in this case, must be non-linear. If that's true, then

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be confused > > with the operator by the same name that preserves inner products. AG* > > > > > *Another correction: the time evolution operator is a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which > I > > believe is linear in t. AG* > > Yes, it is linear and

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:49:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which I > believe is linear in t. AG* Yes, it is linear and unitary. Unitary operators are linear, but linear operators are not necessarily unitary. That

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:20:27 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave > > mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave > mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use Heisenberg's Matrix > Mechanics. No waves, nothing to collapse. Is this a cop-out? AG In matrix

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:39:25 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > That makes things

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. > Does the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/20/2017 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/20/2017 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/19/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But in fact the box is not isolated. Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/19/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:   But in fact the box is not isolated. Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy. The box too is interacting with the environment. 

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But in fact the box is not isolated. Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy. The box too is interacting with the environment. So it's like the Zeno effect. Although there

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 15, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in cognitive science, so

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:   But in fact the box is not isolated. Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy. The box too is interacting with the environment.  So it's like the Zeno effect.  Although there is a probability at each impact of producing a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in cognitive science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at all: it has

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/15/2017 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + | tails>}, but it starts with a state of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in cognitive science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at all: it has to be like that. Eventually, the "negative amplitude

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/15/2017 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The coin does not start in a state of the kind  {|heads> + |tails>}, but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions and multiple momenta,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > ​>> ​ >> David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his >> book "The Ghost In The Atom", but >> ​ it ​ >> would be very difficult to perform. The reason it's so difficult to test >> is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + | tails>}, but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions and multiple momenta, spreaded in the multiverse according to the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15-12-2017 00:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/12/2017 10:15 am, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think this argument pre-dates the work by Zeh and Zurek developing the idea of decoherence. Decoherence remove the oddities of Copenhagen as presented above in that it

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> * BUT for a nucleus of a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:45:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:41:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/12/2017 10:15 am, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think this argument pre-dates the work by Zeh and Zurek developing the idea of decoherence. Decoherence remove the oddities of Copenhagen as presented above in that it is not consciousness that does the work,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/12/2017 10:08 am, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: The thing about mixed states is that they are inevitable if you write the state of a system as a tensor product of the separate states of subsystems. The separate subsystems are not pure states because of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15-12-2017 00:08, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/12/2017 6:25 am, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, wrote: ​ > ​ I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory. David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: So, let's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 15/12/2017 6:25 am, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, >wrote: ​ > ​ I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory. David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory. > David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but ​it ​ would be very difficult to perform. The

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: So, let's examine this more closely. We start with a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote: On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: So, let's examine this more closely. We start with a state that is a superposition of branches

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 13,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/13/2017 7:38 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:39:12 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, wrote: ​ ​>>​ Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:39:12 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>>​ >>> Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is >>> doing the detection?​ >>> >>> >> >> ​> ​ >> For the nth time,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is doing >> the detection?​ >> >> > > ​> ​ > For the nth time, it can be an instrument. > ​ ​Fine, ​t he instrument can be in 2 states, the photon

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:51:39 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:36 PM, > wrote: > > >> ​>​ >> All I am saying is that electrons (and all particles) move as waves when >> undetected, and are localized in space when detected. >> > >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 13,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:36 PM, wrote: > ​>​ > All I am saying is that electrons (and all particles) move as waves when > undetected, and are localized in space when detected. > ​Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is doing the detection?​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:04:32 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:25 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> In the double slit experiment, the photon, or electron, or whatever, >> travels as a wave and goes through both slits in THIS world. >> > > *​Not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote: On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: Yes, it's only

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> * BUT for a nucleus of a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:25 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > In the double slit experiment, the photon, or electron, or whatever, > travels as a wave and goes through both slits in THIS world. > *​Not if you look at one of the slits it doesn't! If you put a device that can detect

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.*

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:25:12 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:10:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >> ​ ​>> ​ I've been asking all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:10:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave >>> function. If its not an observer and its not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > * BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never Decayed > and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.* > > Sure it is. It's in a coherent superposition of those

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude estimate for the center of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude estimate for the center of mass. What the calculation shows is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The coin does not start in a state of the kind  {|heads> + |tails>}, but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions and multiple momenta, spreaded in the multiverse according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty. The tiny difference in the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.* Sure it is.  It's in a coherent superposition of those states until it interacts with the environment. Brent -- You received this

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave >> function. If its not an observer and its not a measurement and its not >> consciousness then what is it? > > > ​> ​ > It is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13 Dec 2017, at 04:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote: ​> ​ He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that everything that CAN happen, DOES happen. ​I don't see how.​ I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything possible

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13 Dec 2017, at 04:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: So

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 13:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 10:47 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 13:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 10:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:41:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote: ​> ​ He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that everything that CAN happen, DOES happen. ​I don't see how.​ I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything possible actually happens.  "Possible" needs to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote: ​>​ I've been saying all along that a conscious observer is not needed to create or destroy the interference ​ I know you have. And I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave function. If its not an observer

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 2:21:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM, > wrote: > > ​> > ​>>​ > ​ > The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, > is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM, wrote: ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​ >>> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the >>> MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. >>> >> >> ​>> ​ >> The >> ​ ​ >> fundamental >> ​ ​ >> assumption of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and >> the splitting occurs with

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus; *Unlike the double slit experiment, which can

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: > > On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude > >>> estimate for

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude estimate for the center of mass. What the calculation shows is that quantum superpositions do exists at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 10:47 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 10:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38,

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >