Re: Interpretation of Superposition

forward and backward in time? I think Feynman eventually gave up on an all-particle model of QM. AG * > >> *I don't know that method, but offhand POSSIBLE PATHS might have nothing >> to do with, and possibly independent of SUPERPOSITIONS OF STATE. AG* >> >> That'

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

u take a sum-over-histories approach it's explicitly assumed the >> electron went via all possible paths. >> > > *I don't know that method, but offhand POSSIBLE PATHS might have nothing > to do with, and possibly independent of SUPERPOSITIONS OF STATE. AG* > &g

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

, it can go through both slits >>>>>>> simultaneously >>>>>>> and interfere with itself. This is my preferred interpretation; the >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> one that makes sense. AG* >>>>>>> >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

t;>> I'm not sure what you mean by "that assumption is not used in >>>>>>> calculating probabilities". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *If the operator whose eigenvalues are being measured has a well >&g

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

lities". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *If the operator whose eigenvalues are being measured has a well >>>>> defined mathematical form -- e.g., not like |alive> -- it has specific >>>>> eigenvectors and eigenvalues, and the

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

t; defined mathematical form -- e.g., not like |alive> -- it has specific >>>> eigenvectors and eigenvalues, and the state function can be written as >>>> superposition of these eigenvectors. It can be shown that eigenvectors >>>> with

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

fore, to calculate the probability of observing >>> a particular eigenvalue, one must take the inner product of the wf with the >>> eigenvector which has that eigenvalue. Due to the orthogonality, all terms >>> drop out except for the term in the superposition which co

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

inner product of the wf with the >> eigenvector which has that eigenvalue. Due to the orthogonality, all terms >> drop out except for the term in the superposition which contains the >> eigenvector whose eigenvalue you want to measure. As you should see, there >> is nothing

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

terms > drop out except for the term in the superposition which contains the > eigenvector whose eigenvalue you want to measure. As you should see, there > is nothing in this process of calculating probabilities that in any way > implies, assumes, or uses, the concept that the

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

). AG* > If you take a sum-over-histories approach it's explicitly assumed the > electron went via all possible paths. > *I don't know that method, but offhand POSSIBLE PATHS might have nothing to do with, and possibly independent of SUPERPOSITIONS OF STATE. AG* I d

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

es approach it's explicitly assumed the electron went via all possible paths. I don't see what the orthogonality of the basis vectors (and hence component states) has to do with the question of interpretation of superposition. Clearly the system will be measured in only one state, and thi

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:33:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Oct 2018, at 11:20, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: >> >> >> *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.* >> >> *'The syste

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 23 Oct 2018, at 11:20, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox. > > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a > charge of gunpowd

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 13.42 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift < > > cloud...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift > ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.* > > *'The system is a

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 6:41:06 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrays...@gmail.com ha > scritto: > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift ha > scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox. > > > > 'The system is a substance in chemical

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.* > > *'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a > charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> O

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I can see how recoherence is impossibl

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but after some time elapses the state of the cat could

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 18 Oct 2018, at 21:57, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 8:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 16 Oct 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/16/2018 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem of the “many-world” is that a “world” is not an easy concept

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 18 Oct 2018, at 21:56, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Goldblatt, the modal logician who has studied S4Grz, but also the modal >> logic B and shown its relation with Quantum logics, which I use to extract >> quantum logic from arithmetic self-

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but after some time elapses >> the state of the cat could Dead or Alive; not necessarily the original >> state, Alive. A*G

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but after some time elapses the state of the cat could Dead or Alive; not necessarily the original state, Alive. A*G When recoherence is no longer possible that's a real phys

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:33:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 12:16 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >>> >>> On 14-10-2018

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:33:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 12:16 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >>> >>> On 14-10-2018

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/18/2018 12:16 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > In a two state system, such as

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/18/2018 8:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/16/2018 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem of the “many-world” is that a “world” is not an easy concept that we could take for granted. But it's the concept used in modal logic. Yes,

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/18/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Goldblatt, the modal logician who has studied S4Grz, but also the modal logic B and shown its relation with Quantum logics, which I use to extract quantum logic from arithmetic self-reference, has also studied a modality related to 4-dimensional Mi

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >> >> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation >> > that the system is

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 17 Oct 2018, at 00:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> The state is

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 16 Oct 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 10/16/2018 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> The problem of the “many-world” is that a “world” is not an easy concept >> that we could take for granted. > > But it's the concept used in modal logic. Yes, but there a world is de

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 16 Oct 2018, at 05:29, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: >> On 15-10-2018 12:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >>> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > In a two state sy

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 16 Oct 2018, at 00:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> >> >> It may look like one can re-interpret QM as being consistent with >> Einstein realism, but Bell disproved this (if you assume locality). Note >> also what Bruce said about "simultaneously". >> >

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: The state is still the original state until decoherence kicks in and

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/16/2018 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem of the “many-world” is that a “world” is not an easy concept that we could take for granted. But it's the concept used in modal logic. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Oct 2018, at 20:01, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation >>

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >>> >>> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > In a tw

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> On 14 Oct 2018, at 20:01, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation that > the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, versus the > in

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 10/15/2018 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: > This all suggests to me that we live in a multiverse where each moment > of time defines a different un

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/15/2018 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: > This all suggests to me that we live in a multiverse where each moment > of time defines a different universe, memories of the past refer to > alternative u

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: > This all suggests to me that we live in a multiverse where each moment > of time defines a different universe, memories of the past refer to > alternative universes. We need to keep in mind that in experi

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: On 15-10-2018 12:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation that the system is

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

From: *smitra* mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> It may look like one can re-interpret QM as being consistent with Einstein realism, but Bell disproved this (if you assume locality). Note also what Bruce said about "simultaneously". My own idea is that we need to think about how to interpret time evolu

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 1:21:28 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > > It may look like one can re-interpret QM as being consistent with > Einstein realism, but Bell disproved this (if you assume locality). Note > also what Bruce said about "simultaneously". > > Not exactly. https://arxiv.org

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 15-10-2018 12:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation that the system is in both states simultaneously before meas

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:51 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > *There is not one method of calculation.* > > > There is always more than one way to make a calculation in physics, but at > the end of the day they all end up with

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:51 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > *There is not one method of calculation.* There is always more than one way to make a calculation in physics, but at the end of the day they all end up with the same number. And if that number doesn't match the number experiment told us ab

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:01:32 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:40 AM > wrote: > > *> What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system in >> a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- contradicting >> the intuitive appeal o

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:40 AM wrote: *> What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system in > a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- contradicting > the intuitive appeal of Einstein realism* > Because in physics experiment is king, and however intuitiv

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:17:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >> >> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation >> > that the system is

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation > that the system is in both states simultaneously before

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: > > On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation > > that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, > > versus the interpretation th

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation > that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, versus > the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in before

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, versus the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in before measurement? Is the latter interpre

Interpretation of Superposition

In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, versus the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in before measurement? Is the latter interpretation equivalent to Einstein Realism? And if so,