Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 14:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 11:39:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
 I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why 
 a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies 
 FTL,
>>> 
>>> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. 
>>> Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local perturbation 
>>> which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>>> 
>>> How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
>>> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG
>> 
>> 
>> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends 
>> to zero on infinity.
>> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
>> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
>> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
>> physical universe. I would say.
>> 
>> You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies in 
>> time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are, 
>> extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time and 
>> the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do with 
>> square integral functions. AG
> 
> Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are 
> mathematical abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some 
> circular wave. In QM you can handle something close to plane wave with 
> distribution theory.
> 
> You want to have your cake and eat it. Plane waves are solutions to ME's. You 
> want to reify all mathematics as having ontological status, implying the MWI 
> derivable from QM, but not plane waves. AG


I assume only that 2+2=4 independently of me. I believe that if I could die, 
that would have no consequence on the distribution of primes. I have to, 
because something like the Church-Turing thesis would have not any sense 
without such minimal realism. It is implicit in the proof of the existence of 
universal machineries (in the Turing sense).

Then I show why and how to derive, not the many-worlds but the whole of physics 
(including plausibly the universal wave) from the machine’s introspection. It 
works. (Until now).




>>> 
>>>  |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not 
>>> discussing it in this context.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or not 
>>> as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about the 
>>> nature of the superposition.
>>> 
>>> That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
>>> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG 
>> 
>> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about 
>> the physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition.
>> 
>> You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are 
>> INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition.
> 
> Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing the 
> interpretation of the theory.
> 
> Not necessary. For Copenhagen and Everett, the system represented by a 
> superposition is in all component states simultaneously. Everett just goes 
> further in saying the components continue to exist after measurement (in 
> other words),

Yes. Everett assumes simply that the physicists obey to the physical laws.



> whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via collapse.


Yes. They have to assume dome dualism, and a physicist does no more obey to QM.



> But I have discussing the first part of the interpretation of superposition, 
> not how Everett extends it, or the problem for Copenhagen in the 
> disappearance of the components upon measurement, except for the measured 
> outcome. Put simply, I am only dealing with the initial interpretation of 
> superposition, not the subsequent interpretation. No need to discuss 
> Copenhagen vs Everett. You want me to say it again? AG


You have failed to explain me how you interpret the superposition in the case 
of photon in superposed state, or just the two slits, which as Feynman said 
contains the full “mystery” of QM.
I have some idea of you try to defend, but I certainly missed the details.



>> Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that all 
>> components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue against. AG
> 
> I 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 11:39:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand 
>>> why a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane 
>>> implies FTL,*
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to 
>>> me. Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local 
>>> perturbation which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
>> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which 
>> tends to zero on infinity.
>> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
>> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
>> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
>> physical universe. I would say.
>>
>
> *You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies 
> in time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are, 
> extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time 
> and the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do 
> with square integral functions. AG*
>
>
> Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are 
> mathematical abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some 
> circular wave. In QM you can handle something close to plane wave with 
> distribution theory.
>

*You want to have your cake and eat it. Plane waves are solutions to ME's. 
You want to reify all mathematics as having ontological status, implying 
the MWI derivable from QM, but not plane waves. AG*

>
>> * |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am 
>> not discussing it in this context. *
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or 
>>> not as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about 
>>> the nature of the superposition.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
>> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG *
>>
>>
>> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about 
>> the physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition. 
>>
>
> *You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are 
> INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition. 
> *
>
>
> Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing 
> the interpretation of the theory.
>

*Not necessary. For Copenhagen and Everett, the system represented by a 
superposition is in all component states simultaneously. Everett just goes 
further in saying the components continue to exist after measurement (in 
other words), whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via 
collapse. But I have discussing the first part of the interpretation of 
superposition, not how Everett extends it, or the problem for Copenhagen in 
the disappearance of the components upon measurement, except for the 
measured outcome. Put simply, I am only dealing with the initial 
interpretation of superposition, not the subsequent interpretation. No need 
to discuss Copenhagen vs Everett. You want me to say it again? AG*

> *Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that 
> all components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue 
> against. AG*
>
>
> I understood, but you fail to explain all mentioned example
>
> * I'm not trying to explain everything, other than the fact that the 
standard interpretation of superposition is in error.  AG*
 

> like the two slits, or the difference of behaviour between a pure state 
> and a mixed state. 
>


*How does the interpretation of superposition I allege as erroneous 
"explain" these phenomena? AFAICT, except for slit experiments, it's not 
even applied! AG *
To say that the superposition is only a claculational device does to 
work, as the two slits, and basically all superposition effect have 
observable consequences. 

*What SPECIFICALLY about superposition has observable consequences?** Since 
eigenstate components of a superposition are orthogonal, they don't even 
mutually interfere, so why assume they co-exist physically for the system 
they represent? What added explanatory value exists in this INTERPRETATION? 
Other than the case of slit experiments, the interpretation of 
superposition I object to is totally unnecessary, except to 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why a 
>>> classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies 
>>> FTL,
>> 
>> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. 
>> Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local perturbation 
>> which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>> 
>> How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
>> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG
> 
> 
> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends to 
> zero on infinity.
> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
> physical universe. I would say.
> 
> You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies in 
> time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are, 
> extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time and 
> the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do with 
> square integral functions. AG

Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are mathematical 
abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some circular wave. In QM 
you can handle something close to plane wave with distribution theory.




>> 
>>  |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not 
>> discussing it in this context.
>> 
>> 
>> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or not 
>> as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about the 
>> nature of the superposition.
>> 
>> That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
>> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG 
> 
> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about the 
> physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition.
> 
> You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are 
> INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition.

Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing the 
interpretation of the theory.




> Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that all 
> components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue against. AG


I understood, but you fail to explain all mentioned examples, like the two 
slits, or the difference of behaviour between a pure state and a mixed state. 
To say that the superposition is only a claculational device does to work, as 
the two slits, and basically all superposition effect have observable 
consequences. So, just to understand you, I need to know if you are in the 
Copenhagen theory or in Everett theory, then we can discuss how to interpret 
the theory, but we have to agree clearly which theory we are discussing. 
Everett and Copenhagen are different theories, i.e. different set of 
assumptions, NOT different interpretations of a unique theory. 

Bruno



>  
> For me, only Everett QM makes sense. Copenhagen would make sense with some 
> reasonable explanation for the Physical collapse, but nobody finds it, and we 
> know now that it would entails FTL or non-realism, etc. Without collapse, no 
> superposition ever disappear, but everything becomes smooth again, except for 
> the perhaps showing mutiplication of histories and persons, but it is only 
> shocking, not contradictory, and not as magical than instantaneous action at 
> a distance.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Let's end this discussion. AG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
 *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
 is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
 norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
 manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. AG
>>> 
>>> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
>>> superposition as physical reality.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
  
 That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
 physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
 interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
 probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/27/2018 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends 
>> to zero on infinity.
>> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
>> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
>> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
>> physical universe. I would say.
> 
> So much for "everything exists".  :-)

“Everything” means nothing without saying which things we are talking about. To 
my knowledge, only “many computations” makes sense, by the “Gödel’s miracle” 
(Church’s thesis, the closure of the partial computable functions for the 
diagonalisation procedure). That means most functions do NOT exist, nor the 
real numbers, etc.

Bruno




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

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> *I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand 
>> why a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane 
>> implies FTL,*
>>
>>
>> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to 
>> me. Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local 
>> perturbation which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>>
>
>
> *How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG*
>
>
>
> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends 
> to zero on infinity.
> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
> physical universe. I would say.
>

*You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies 
in time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are, 
extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time 
and the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do 
with square integral functions. AG*

>
> * |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am 
> not discussing it in this context. *
>
>>
>>
>> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or 
>> not as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about 
>> the nature of the superposition.
>>
>
>
> *That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG *
>
>
> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about 
> the physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition. 
>

*You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are 
INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition. 
Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that all 
components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue against. AG*
 

> For me, only Everett QM makes sense. Copenhagen would make sense with some 
> reasonable explanation for the Physical collapse, but nobody finds it, and 
> we know now that it would entails FTL or non-realism, etc. Without 
> collapse, no superposition ever disappear, but everything becomes smooth 
> again, except for the perhaps showing mutiplication of histories and 
> persons, but it is only shocking, not contradictory, and not as magical 
> than instantaneous action at a distance.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Let's end this discussion. AG*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. A*G
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or 
>>> Dirac superposition as physical reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
 That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
 physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
 interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
 probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
 up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
 each of which pass with a probability 1/2.

 Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we 
 are using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
 collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
 reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
 linearity.

 Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument 
 measure. All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and 
 those 
 are real, we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is 
 exploited in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many 
 computations at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual 
 result, we can test global information on all results, like "are they all 
 the same or different? or question of parity of results, etc. 

 The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse 
 taken seriously. No need to add some 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/27/2018 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which 
tends to zero on infinity.
A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there 
is no time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a 
wave in a physical universe. I would say.


So much for "everything exists".  :-)

Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
>> I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why a 
>> classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies FTL,
> 
> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. 
> Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local perturbation 
> which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
> 
> How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
> unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG


That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends to 
zero on infinity.
A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical reality. 
It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no time and 
space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a physical 
universe. I would say.



> 
>  |and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not 
> discussing it in this context.
> 
> 
> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or not 
> as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about the 
> nature of the superposition.
> 
> That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
> discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG 


I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about the 
physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition. For me, only 
Everett QM makes sense. Copenhagen would make sense with some reasonable 
explanation for the Physical collapse, but nobody finds it, and we know now 
that it would entails FTL or non-realism, etc. Without collapse, no 
superposition ever disappear, but everything becomes smooth again, except for 
the perhaps showing mutiplication of histories and persons, but it is only 
shocking, not contradictory, and not as magical than instantaneous action at a 
distance.

Bruno




> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Let's end this discussion. AG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. AG
>> 
>> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
>> superposition as physical reality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>>> 
>>> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
>>> using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
>>> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
>>> reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
>>> linearity.
>>> 
>>> Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument measure. 
>>> All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those are 
>>> real, we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is 
>>> exploited in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many 
>>> computations at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual 
>>> result, we can test global information on all results, like "are they all 
>>> the same or different? or question of parity of results, etc. 
>>> 
>>> The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse taken 
>>> seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A world 
>>> can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, but 
>>> it is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have good 
>>> reason to disbelieve such worlds). 
>>> 
>>> The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to calculate 
>>> probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not work. Nature 
>>> confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable difference 
>>> between mixed state and superposition. We can add hidden variable, or 
>>> Bohm’s Guiding particles Potential, but this has been shown to lead to FTL 
>>> (even instantaneous) influence(*) and other magic things or to many-worlds.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey 
>>> Everett quantum 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> *I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why 
> a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies 
> FTL,*
>
>
> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to 
> me. Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local 
> perturbation which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>



*How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG** |and you 
bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not discussing it 
in this context. *

>
>
> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or 
> not as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about 
> the nature of the superposition.
>

*That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG *

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> *Let's end this discussion. AG*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. A*G
>>
>>
>> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
>> superposition as physical reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>>>
>>> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we 
>>> are using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
>>> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
>>> reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
>>> linearity.
>>>
>>> Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument 
>>> measure. All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those 
>>> are real, we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is 
>>> exploited in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many 
>>> computations at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual 
>>> result, we can test global information on all results, like "are they all 
>>> the same or different? or question of parity of results, etc. 
>>>
>>> The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse 
>>> taken seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A 
>>> world can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, 
>>> but it is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have 
>>> good reason to disbelieve such worlds). 
>>>
>>> The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to 
>>> calculate probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not 
>>> work. Nature confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable 
>>> difference between mixed state and superposition. We can add hidden 
>>> variable, or Bohm’s Guiding particles Potential, but this has been shown to 
>>> lead to FTL (even instantaneous) influence(*) and other magic things or to 
>>> many-worlds.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey 
>>> Everett quantum mechanics, i.e. that some collapse occurs somewhere, 
>>> instantaneously.
>>>
>>
>> *I never discussed collapse, one way or another. I just claim that there 
>> is apparently no justification for the Copenhagen(?) INTERPRETATION of 
>> superposition in QM. *
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a new axiom in the theory, before leading to any interpretation. I 
>> agree with you, the collapse is just a coquetry added to avoid being 
>> oneself and the (local) physical reality multiplied. But there is no 
>> experimental evidence for such a collapse, and it entails FTL, 
>> indeterminacy. With the SWE without collapse, the probabilities come only 
>> from the impossibility to know which branch of the universal wave we are 
>> in, like with mechanism we cannot know which computations support us. QM 
>> confirms Mechanism here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *I have asked for the justification many times, but no takers. *
>>
>>
>> In this list, few people believe in a collapse.
>>
>>
>>
>> *I don't think they can justify it. Of course, generally, postulates are 
>> not amenable to justification, but 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why a 
> classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies FTL,


You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. 
Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local perturbation which 
“contagiates" its local neighbours.



> and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not 
> discussing it in this context.


Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or not as 
part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about the nature 
of the superposition.

Bruno




> Let's end this discussion. AG











>> Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. AG
> 
> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
> superposition as physical reality.
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>> 
>> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
>> using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
>> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
>> reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
>> linearity.
>> 
>> Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument measure. 
>> All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those are real, 
>> we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is exploited 
>> in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many computations 
>> at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual result, we can test 
>> global information on all results, like "are they all the same or different? 
>> or question of parity of results, etc. 
>> 
>> The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse taken 
>> seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A world 
>> can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, but it 
>> is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have good 
>> reason to disbelieve such worlds). 
>> 
>> The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to calculate 
>> probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not work. Nature 
>> confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable difference 
>> between mixed state and superposition. We can add hidden variable, or Bohm’s 
>> Guiding particles Potential, but this has been shown to lead to FTL (even 
>> instantaneous) influence(*) and other magic things or to many-worlds.
>> 
>> In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey 
>> Everett quantum mechanics, i.e. that some collapse occurs somewhere, 
>> instantaneously.
>> 
>> I never discussed collapse, one way or another. I just claim that there is 
>> apparently no justification for the Copenhagen(?) INTERPRETATION of 
>> superposition in QM.
> 
> 
> It is a new axiom in the theory, before leading to any interpretation. I 
> agree with you, the collapse is just a coquetry added to avoid being oneself 
> and the (local) physical reality multiplied. But there is no experimental 
> evidence for such a collapse, and it entails FTL, indeterminacy. With the SWE 
> without collapse, the probabilities come only from the impossibility to know 
> which branch of the universal wave we are in, like with mechanism we cannot 
> know which computations support us. QM confirms Mechanism here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I have asked for the justification many times, but no takers.
> 
> In this list, few people believe in a collapse.
> 
> 
> 
>> I don't think they can justify it. Of course, generally, postulates are not 
>> amenable to justification, but in the case of superposition, the 
>> interpretation I object to has a unique property; it's never applied in a 
>> calculation!
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I can’t explain neither the two slits, nor the working 
> of an interferometer, nor the hydrogen atom, nor anything, without the 
> superposition principle. The collapse is never used, but the superposition is 
> just a consequence of the fact that state are represented by wave, or by 
> “vector” in a Hilbert space 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>>> all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>>> You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>>> wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
>> know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you 
>> expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
>> NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

 *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
 AG*

>>>
>>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>>
>>> Thank you. 
>>>
>>
>> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
>> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
>> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
>> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
>> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
>> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to 
>> be the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the 
>> empirical discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a 
>> physical state. 
>>
>
> *Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.*
>
>
>
> Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added 
> to a wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical 
> waves, like on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard 
> to interpret. They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the 
> amplitude gives the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to 
> the fact that the amplitude is physically real with objective sharable 
> consequence.
>
>
>
> * Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but 
> why don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a 
> FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever? *
>
>
> I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would 
> entail a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse 
> occurs, especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to 
> occur from the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>>> all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>>> You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>>> wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
>> know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you 
>> expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
>> NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

 *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
 AG*

>>>
>>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>>
>>> Thank you. 
>>>
>>
>> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
>> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
>> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
>> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
>> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
>> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to 
>> be the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the 
>> empirical discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a 
>> physical state. 
>>
>
> *Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.*
>
>
>
> Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added 
> to a wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical 
> waves, like on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard 
> to interpret. They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the 
> amplitude gives the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to 
> the fact that the amplitude is physically real with objective sharable 
> consequence.
>
>
>
> * Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but 
> why don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a 
> FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever? *
>
>
> I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would 
> entail a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse 
> occurs, especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to 
> occur from the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 22:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
 
 
 
> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
 
 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
 You are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for 
 anything else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been 
 shown wrong, at any scale and level.
 
 Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  
 
 OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>> 
>>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
>>> about. Thanks for your time. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>> superposition,
>> 
>> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG
>> 
>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
>> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
>> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>> 
>> Thank you. 
>> 
>> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition 
>> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use 
>> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do 
>> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form 
>> a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT 
>> unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be 
> the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
> discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical 
> state.
> 
> Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME's. Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which 
> is understandable, but why don't you object to classical plane wave 
> solutions? Don't you think a FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at 
> infinity, along the plane, extended forever? Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM 
> is its probability prediction, which is *different* from what one would 
> expect classically. This is because the wf is complex, and because the 
> probability is calculated by taking the norm-squared, one gets a different 
> prediction for the interference, which manifests mathematically by the 
> existence of cross terms. AG
>  
> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
> 
> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
> using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the collapse 
> postulate. Without the collapse 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
 
 
 
> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
 
 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
 You are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for 
 anything else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been 
 shown wrong, at any scale and level.
 
 Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  
 
 OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>> 
>>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
>>> about. Thanks for your time. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>> superposition,
>> 
>> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG
>> 
>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
>> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
>> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>> 
>> Thank you. 
>> 
>> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition 
>> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use 
>> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do 
>> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form 
>> a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT 
>> unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be 
> the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
> discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical 
> state.
> 
> Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.


Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added to a 
wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical waves, like 
on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard to interpret. 
They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the amplitude gives 
the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to the fact that the 
amplitude is physically real with objective sharable consequence.



> Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but why 
> don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a FTL 
> phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever?

I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would entail 
a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse occurs, 
especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to occur from the 
observer relative position in the universal wave.



> Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf is 
> complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
> manifests 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>>> all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>>> You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>>> wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
>> know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you 
>> expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
>> NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

 *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
 AG*

>>>
>>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>>
>>> Thank you. 
>>>
>>
>> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
>> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
>> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
>> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
>> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
>> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to 
>> be the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the 
>> empirical discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a 
>> physical state. 
>>
>
> *Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME's. Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which 
> is understandable, but why don't you object to classical plane wave 
> solutions? Don't you think a FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave 
> at infinity, along the plane, extended forever? Finally, FWIW, the mystery 
> of QM is its probability prediction, which is *different* from what one 
> would expect classically. This is because the wf is complex, and because 
> the probability is calculated by taking the norm-squared, one gets a 
> different prediction for the interference, which manifests mathematically 
> by the existence of cross terms. A*G
>  
>
>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>>

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>> all 
>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>> You 
>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>> wrong, 
>> at any scale and level.
>>
>
>
>
> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
> know 
> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
> NOT 
> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>
>
>
> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>


 *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
 arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *



 What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
 replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
 superposition, 

>>>
>>> *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
>>> AG*
>>>
>>
>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>
>> Thank you. 
>>
>
> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
> simultaneously. AG* 
>
>
>
>
> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be 
> the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
> discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical 
> state. 
>

*Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
another solution to ME's. Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which 
is understandable, but why don't you object to classical plane wave 
solutions? Don't you think a FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave 
at infinity, along the plane, extended forever? Finally, FWIW, the mystery 
of QM is its probability prediction, which is *different* from what one 
would expect classically. This is because the wf is complex, and because 
the probability is calculated by taking the norm-squared, one gets a 
different prediction for the interference, which manifests mathematically 
by the existence of cross terms. A*G
 

> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>
> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we 
> are using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
> 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
 superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
 all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
>>> 
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this thread. 
>>> Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know it well 
>>> enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect to posit 
>>> new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you are unable 
>>> to understand simple English?  
>>> 
>>> OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
>> 
>> 
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>> 
>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
>> about. Thanks for your time. AG 
> 
> 
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition,
> 
> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG
> 
> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for us 
> to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we all 
> know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in blinking 
> red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
> 
> Thank you. 
> 
> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition 
> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use 
> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do 
> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of eigenstates 
> (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form a basis) is 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT unique? I don't 
> see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard quantum problems, such 
> as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems 
> such as a cat which is alive and dead simultaneously. AG 



I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be the 
essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical state. 
That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic physics, 
and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of interpretation: it 
is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with probability one a 
“polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, up-down}, and that is 
not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, each of which pass with a 
probability 1/2.

Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the collapse 
postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever reducse into a 
singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum linearity.

Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument measure. All 
state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those are real, we can 
test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is exploited in quantum 
computing, where some algorithm can superposed many computations at once, and, 
despite we cannot observe each individual result, we can test global 
information on all results, like "are they all the same or different? or 
question of parity of results, etc. 

The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse taken 
seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A world can 
be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, but it is an 
open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have good reason to 
disbelieve such worlds). 

The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to calculate 
probabilities was inspiring a long 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all 
> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
> You 
> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
> wrong, 
> at any scale and level.
>



 *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
 questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*



 That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?

>>>
>>>
>>> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
>>> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>>> superposition, 
>>>
>>
>> *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
>> AG*
>>
>
> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>
> Thank you. 
>

*How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
simultaneously. AG* 

>
>>  
>>
>>> makes me doubt you have study QM, 
>>>
>>
>> which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps 
>>> try to clarify. 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or 
 DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs 
 FTL influence, I have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.



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

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 


 *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum
 superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all
 eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*


 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You
 are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything
 else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong,
 at any scale and level.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this
>>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know
>>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect
>>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you
>>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT
>>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am
>> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no
>> superposition,
>>
>
> *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG*
>

Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for
us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we
all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in
blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting.

Thank you.

>
>
>
>> makes me doubt you have study QM,
>>
>
> which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps
>> try to clarify.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler,
>>> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I
>>> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

*I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG*
 

> makes me doubt you have study QM, 
>

which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps 
> try to clarify. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, 
>> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I 
>> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
>> 
>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or polariser, 
>> or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You are just 
>> saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything else. That is 
>> contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, at any scale 
>> and level.
>> 
>> Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this thread. 
>> Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know it well 
>> enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect to posit 
>> new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you are unable 
>> to understand simple English?  
>> 
>> OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
> 
> 
> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
> 
> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
> about. Thanks for your time. AG 


What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your replies, 
including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no superposition, 
which makes me doubt you have study QM, which is all about superposition. I do 
miss something, you might perhaps try to clarify. 

Bruno


> 
> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. 
> Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I have 
> ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You 
>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, 
>> at any scale and level.
>>
>
>
>
> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>
>
>
> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>


*That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
about. Thanks for your time. AG *

>
> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, 
> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I 
> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
> 
> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or polariser, 
> or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You are just 
> saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything else. That is 
> contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, at any scale 
> and level.
> 
> Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this thread. 
> Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know it well 
> enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect to posit 
> new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you are unable to 
> understand simple English?  
> 
> OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.


That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?

Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. 
Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I have 
ceased to judge the collapse plausible.


The problem is in how we related the results of measurement with the quantum 
wave, and with the collapse, the answer is in the relative average histories 
(sequence of memories).





> All I am asserting is that the INTERPRETATION of a quantum superposition of 
> states is wrong if it claims that a system represented by a superposition of 
> states is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all components of the superposition.

Then QM is false, as it describes an observer of the schroedinger cat as a 
superposition of the observer seeing the cat dead + the observer seeing the cat 
alive. You add a new axiom: the collapse, which distinguish the observer from 
the observed. You need a non mechanist theory of mind.

We disagree on the theory. You add an axiom, which unfortunately leads to FTL, 
physical 3p indeterminism, non covariance, etc.

In Everett, the theory applies to the observer’s body, entirely. You are the 
one adding a new axiom that QM does not obey to what? Macroscopic device? 
Consciousness? You can choose the cut very near your consciousness, to avoid 
the experimental refutations, but in all case, you need to make QM wrong to 
make the other branches of the wave disappear. 






> I make this claim because bases in Hilbert spaces are NOT unique,


The reasoning is independent of the base, but of course, a “concrete” relative 
observer needs to choose a base, usually the same as its preys, which is the 
same for its predators.

I do not claim any truth. Just that QM without collapse explains better than QM 
+ collapse. And then that if QM use mechanism, eventually the wave itself is 
the product of the universal machine ignorance border.




> and I gave the example of vectors in a plane to show that since the number of 
> bases can be huge in number, sometimes uncountable, it mocks the claim that 
> one particular basis is special.


No one is special “ontologically”, but some one become local star.





> If it isn't special, there is no reason to assume that an expansion of a wf 
> for a system in one basis, implies the system is simultaneously in all 
> components of this particular.superposition. 


?

Any base will give the same relative base in which the observer is defined. 
(The position base).

Everett explains all this in detail in his long text. There is no choice of 
special basis, except for the empirist who follows our ancestors in the art of 
positioning things. 

That is probably why the “relative sates” wording is better than the “world” 
wording.  “Dream” or “Game” might be less wrong.






> 
> When I formally studied QM at the undergraduate and graduate levels, we 
> solved many of the standard problems such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., and 
> in no case did the assumption about superposition which I claim is 
> unwarranted and false, enter the analysis.

??? (You miss something, but I did have a book by a guy who understood 
QM very well, indeed was teaching it for 17 years, and did never talk or even 
thing about the conceptual problems. He was just sure that the superposition 
where microscopic things lasting nanoseconds. He acknowledge that he was wrong 
after the Aspect experiment, which changes his life, just trying to understand 
QM.

The assumption of superposition *is* quantum mechanics. 





> I invite you to explicitly and exactly demonstrate where this erroneous 
> assumption is used in these solutions.


 up + down behave differently that a mixture of up and down particles.

By linearity of both evolution and the tensor product O(up + down) = O up + O 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:24:26 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:

  
 On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
 coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
 the 
 level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate 
 result 
 when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new 
 here. 
 Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
 SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *


 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a 
 or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom 
 spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or 
 a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP. 
  Any 
 particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  

>>>
>>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in 
>>> physics, you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause 
>>> confusion and caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent 
>>> posts, 
>>> you seem to be saying that in an SG spin experiment where the 
>>> measurement 
>>> base is UP/DN, the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed 
>>> LEFT/RIGHT 
>>> state which is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure 
>>> spin?), 
>>> and that the LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent 
>>> eigenvalue after UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does 
>>> one 
>>> get the system to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is 
>>> the 
>>> operator for which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the 
>>> value of the persistent eigenvalue?*
>>>
>>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
>>> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the 
>>> spin 
>>> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that 
>>> state 
>>> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
>>> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and 
>>> simultaneously 
>>> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>>>
>>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the 
>>> gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I 
>>> now 
>>> must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT 
>>> unique. 
>>> Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such 
>>> representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your 
>>> argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I 
>>> mean, I 
>>> could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), 
>>> or 
>>> in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that 
>>> the 
>>> system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis 
>>> vectors.*
>>>
>>> *AG*
>>>
>>
>> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT 
>> he doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions 
>> of 
>> what QM is 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:24:26 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>  
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
 
 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
 Any particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  
 
 When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
 need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
 caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
 saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
 the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
 is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
 LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
 UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
 to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
 which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
 persistent eigenvalue?
 
 Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
 -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
 measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
 be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that 
 we can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in 
 the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
 
 HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
 your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
 "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
 since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, 
 and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the 
 physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
 superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
 bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
 physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
 
 AG
 
 I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
 doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
 non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
 physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
 unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
 what QM is telling us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
>>> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>> 
>>> I am not trying to explain the interference.
>> 
>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
>> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
>> physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Jul 2018, at 23:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>  
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
 
 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
 Any particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  
 
 When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
 need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
 caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
 saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
 the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
 is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
 LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
 UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
 to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
 which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
 persistent eigenvalue?
 
 Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
 -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
 measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
 be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that 
 we can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in 
 the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
 
 HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
 your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
 "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
 since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, 
 and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the 
 physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
 superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
 bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
 physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
 
 AG
 
 I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
 doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
 non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
 physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
 unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
 what QM is telling us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
>>> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>> 
>>> I am not trying to explain the interference.
>> 
>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
>> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
>> physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to a 
>> single particle. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:24:26 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
>>> coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
>>> the 
>>> level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate 
>>> result 
>>> when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new 
>>> here. 
>>> Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>>
>>>
>>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a 
>>> or b 
>>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or 
>>> a 
>>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
>>> Any 
>>> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
>>> orthogonal states.  
>>>
>>
>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, 
>> you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion 
>> and 
>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to 
>> be 
>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is 
>> UP/DN, 
>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
>> is 
>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue 
>> after 
>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the 
>> system 
>> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator 
>> for 
>> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
>> persistent eigenvalue?*
>>
>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
>> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the 
>> spin 
>> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that 
>> state 
>> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
>> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and 
>> simultaneously 
>> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>>
>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the 
>> gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I 
>> now 
>> must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT 
>> unique. 
>> Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such 
>> representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your 
>> argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I 
>> mean, I 
>> could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), 
>> or 
>> in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that 
>> the 
>> system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis 
>> vectors.*
>>
>> *AG*
>>
>
> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT 
> he doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions 
> of 
> what QM is telling us. *
>
>
>
> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that 
> occurs in basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the 
> statistics of results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>  
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
>> coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
>> the 
>> level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result 
>> when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new 
>> here. 
>> Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>
>>
>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or 
>> b 
>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
>> Any 
>> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
>> orthogonal states.  
>>
>
> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, 
> you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion 
> and 
> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to 
> be 
> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
> is 
> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue 
> after 
> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
> persistent eigenvalue?*
>
> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the 
> spin 
> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state 
> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and 
> simultaneously 
> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>
> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the 
> gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now 
> must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. 
> Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such 
> representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your 
> argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, 
> I 
> could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), 
> or 
> in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that 
> the 
> system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis 
> vectors.*
>
> *AG*
>

 *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
 doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
 non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
 physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
 unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
 what QM is telling us. *



 Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs 
 in basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics 
 of 
 results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.

>>>
>>> *I am not trying to explain the interference. *
>>>
>>>
>>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if 
>>> the wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the 
>>> wave physically real is that the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>  
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
 argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
 discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
 system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
 question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
 SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
>>> 
>>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
>>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
>>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any 
>>> particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two orthogonal 
>>> states.  
>>> 
>>> When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
>>> need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
>>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
>>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
>>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
>>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
>>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
>>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
>>> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
>>> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
>>> persistent eigenvalue?
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists -- 
>>> meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is measured 
>>> -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can be 
>>> written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we 
>>> can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the 
>>> UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
>>> 
>>> HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
>>> your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
>>> "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
>>> since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
>>> since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
>>> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
>>> superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
>>> bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
>>> physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
>>> 
>>> AG
>>> 
>>> I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
>>> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
>>> what QM is telling us.
>> 
>> 
>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
>> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>> 
>> I am not trying to explain the interference.
> 
> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
> physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to a 
> single particle. 
> 
> 
> 
>> Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary assumption that leads to paradoxes.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> See comment below. AG
>>  
>> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse 
>> superposed components have a physical role, through destructive or 
>> constructive, or in 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
> coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the 
> level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result 
> when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new 
> here. 
> Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>
>
> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or 
> b 
> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
> Any 
> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
> orthogonal states.  
>

 *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, 
 you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion 
 and 
 caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
 saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
 the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
 is 
 also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
 LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
 UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
 to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
 which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
 persistent eigenvalue?*

 *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
 persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin 
 is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state 
 can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
 that we can now be certain that the system is physically and 
 simultaneously 
 in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *

 *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the 
 gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now 
 must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. 
 Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such 
 representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your 
 argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, 
 I 
 could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or 
 in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that 
 the 
 system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis 
 vectors.*

 *AG*

>>>
>>> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
>>> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
>>> what QM is telling us. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs 
>>> in basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>>
>>
>> *I am not trying to explain the interference. *
>>
>>
>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
>> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the 
>> wave physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to 
>> a single particle. 
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary assumption that leads to 
>> paradoxes.*
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * See comment below. AG*
>>  
>>
>>> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

 
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
 argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
 discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
 system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
 question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
 SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *


 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
 Any 
 particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  

>>>
>>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, 
>>> you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
>>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
>>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
>>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
>>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
>>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
>>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
>>> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
>>> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
>>> persistent eigenvalue?*
>>>
>>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
>>> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin 
>>> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state 
>>> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
>>> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously 
>>> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>>>
>>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps 
>>> in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
>>> "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
>>> since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
>>> since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
>>> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
>>> superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
>>> bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
>>> physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.*
>>>
>>> *AG*
>>>
>>
>> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
>> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
>> what QM is telling us. *
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs 
>> in basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>
>
> *I am not trying to explain the interference. *
>
>
> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the 
> wave physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to 
> a single particle. 
>
>
>
> *Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary assumption that leads to 
> paradoxes.*
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
> * See comment below. AG*
>  
>
>> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse 
>> superposed components have a physical role, through destructive or 
>> constructive, or in between, interference.
>>
>
> *The amplitudes give probabilities of occurrence, confirmed by 
> measurements. Nothing more. You forget that the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
>> 
>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any 
>> particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two orthogonal 
>> states.  
>> 
>> When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
>> need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system to 
>> be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for which 
>> that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the persistent 
>> eigenvalue?
>> 
>> Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists -- 
>> meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is measured 
>> -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can be written 
>> as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we can now be 
>> certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the UP and DN 
>> states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
>> 
>> HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
>> your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
>> "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
>> since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
>> since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
>> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the superposed 
>> states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other bases. Absent 
>> uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is physically and 
>> simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
>> 
>> AG
>> 
>> I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
>> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
>> what QM is telling us.
> 
> 
> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
> 
> I am not trying to explain the interference.

You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the wave 
describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to a single 
particle. 



> Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary assumption that leads to paradoxes.

?




> See comment below. AG
>  
> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse 
> superposed components have a physical role, through destructive or 
> constructive, or in between, interference.
> 
> The amplitudes give probabilities of occurrence, confirmed by measurements. 
> Nothing more. You forget that the components of the superposition are usually 
> assumed to be orthogonal states, which don't mutually interfere. Thus, you 
> are claiming to explain interference from component states which don't 
> 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 7:48:02 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> ---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG
>
> Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it 
> an abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?
>

*We know for sure it's a calculational tool. What's the argument it's 
anything beyond that? AG*
 

> This is the question.
>
> This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a 
> possessed property unless it is measured.
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 7:48:02 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> ---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG
>
> Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it 
> an abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?
>

*It just gives information. As I have repeatedly stated, there is no unique 
basis for expressing a superposition. So if you want to claim the system is 
in all component states simultaneously, you need to justify it. No one 
seems up to the challenge. They seem to have fallen in love with 
complacency. IMO, the error arose due to the double slit experiment. Here, 
if the particle moves as a wave, it goes through both slits, and there is 
mutual interference. Hence, in this seminal experiment, one can imagine 
that the system before measurement is simultaneously in the *two* states of 
the superposition. But I think happened, historically, is that this case 
was generalized inappropriately. E.g., what is the interference between 
Decayed and Undecayed states of a radioactive source? Can you specify it? 
AG*
 

> This is the question.
>
> This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a 
> possessed property unless it is measured.
>

*I can't explain everything. I can only demand a rigorous explanation for 
the assumption that a system in a superposition of states, is in all 
component states simultaneously, notwithstanding the NON UNIQUENESS of 
bases. So far, I don't see any foundation for this assumption, and when I 
reject it, many of the quantum paradoxes evaporate. AG *

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>>
>>>
>>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
>>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
>>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any 
>>> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
>>> orthogonal states.  
>>>
>>
>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
>> need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
>> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
>> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
>> persistent eigenvalue?*
>>
>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
>> -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
>> measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
>> be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we 
>> can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the 
>> UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>>
>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps 
>> in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
>> "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
>> since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
>> since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
>> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
>> superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
>> bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
>> physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.*
>>
>> *AG*
>>
>
> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
> what QM is telling us. *
>
>
>
> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>

*I am not trying to explain the interference. Rather I am pointing out an 
unnecessary assumption that leads to paradoxes. See comment below. AG*
 

> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse 
> superposed components have a physical role, through destructive or 
> constructive, or in between, interference.
>

*The amplitudes give probabilities of occurrence, confirmed by 
measurements. Nothing more. You forget that the components of the 
superposition are usually assumed to be orthogonal states, which don't 
mutually interfere. Thus, you are claiming to explain interference from 
component states which don't interfere. Try this; in the case of 
radioactive decay, can you define the interference between Decayed and 
Undecayed states? AG*
 

> Note that the discussion here supposed the quantum theory, but you are 
> free of course to propose an alternative. Many have tried without success, 
> though.
>

*What I am doing is asking the usual 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Jul 2018, at 15:48, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> ---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG
> 
> Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an 
> abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?
> 
> This is the question.
> 
> 


Good question. It provides relative (indexical) information. Eventually, with 
mechanism, it has to be first person plural, which means that we share *some* 
computations. It means that we are multiplied together, like in the WM 
duplication where the outsider decide to follow the candidate in the cut and 
copy boxes. QM illustrates this directly by the linearity of the tensor 
products, which has not yet be recovered in the arithmetical self-referential 
(indexical) modes of the universal machine.




> This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a 
> possessed property unless it is measured.
> 
> 

Hmm…. That is saying too much, and can lead to solipsism. To have a sharable 
(sheaf of) computation(s), we need things existing relatively to us before we 
do a measurement. If not, the dinosaurs would have survived the asteroids just 
by closing they eyes and ears. 

Bruno





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

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY 
>> before the measurement? AG  
> 
> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can directly 
> measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and confirmed the 
> system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The 
> easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin 
> UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can 
> be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any particular  orientation can 
> be written as a superposition of two orthogonal states.  
> 
> When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you need 
> to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and caused me 
> to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be saying that 
> in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, the system 
> being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is also 
> measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the LEFT/RIGHT 
> superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after UP/DN is 
> measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system to be 
> measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for which 
> that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the persistent 
> eigenvalue?
> 
> Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists -- 
> meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is measured -- 
> and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can be written as 
> a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we can now be 
> certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the UP and DN 
> states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
> 
> HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
> your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must "rant" 
> again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, since 
> there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and since 
> (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the superposed 
> states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other bases. Absent 
> uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is physically and 
> simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
> 
> AG
> 
> I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
> what QM is telling us.


Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse superposed 
components have a physical role, through destructive or constructive, or in 
between, interference.
Note that the discussion here supposed the quantum theory, but you are free of 
course to propose an alternative. Many have tried without success, though.

Bruno





> Incidentally, when you earlier referred to a RIGHT/LEFT superposition, did 
> you mean circular polarization, or right and left directions in a SG 
> apparatus in relation to Up/Dn measurements? TIA, AG  
> 
> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can prepare 
> or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states we can't 
> directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as superpositions 
> of states we can prepare.
> 
> 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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG

Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an 
abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?

This is the question.

This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a possessed 
property unless it is measured.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

"The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated 
directly by the theory, 


--- Where does the theory assert this? I don't see this, and the usual 
suspects are silent. I suppose they can't stand the heat. I see that Peres 
is focused on how the complex amplitudes are estimated, not overtly 
relevant to my issue. AG


by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the 
respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really 
observe are particles 


--- What has the observation of particles has to do with this issue? He 
says "of which the theory is supposed to indicate ... ."  Is Erwin speaking 
out of both sides of his mouth? AG


that actual events always concern particles, not waves." -Erwin Schroedinger


---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG





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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 13 luglio 2018 alle 20.55 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 8:24:32 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > scerir wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 
> > > > > > 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 
> > > > > > > PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 
> > > > > > > > > at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 
> > > > > > > > > > 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 8:24:32 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality. 
>
>
>
> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>
>
> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>
>>
>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
>> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any 
>> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
>> orthogonal states.  
>>
>
> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
> need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
> persistent eigenvalue?*
>
> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
> -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
> measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
> be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we 
> can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the 
> UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>
> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps 
> in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
> "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
> since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
> since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
> simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
> superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
> bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
> physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.*
>
> *AG*
>

*I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
what QM is telling us. Incidentally, when you earlier referred to a 
RIGHT/LEFT superposition, did you mean circular polarization, or right and 
left directions in a SG apparatus in relation to Up/Dn measurements? TIA, 
AG * 

>
>> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
>> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
>> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
>> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
>> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM 
> > > > > > > UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything List wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   No. I am asserting that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > states is wrong. Although I have asked 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several times, no one here seems able to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offer a plausible justification for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpreting that a system in a superposition 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of states, is physically in all states of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system is measured. If we go back to those 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little pointing things, you will see there 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists an infinite uncountable set of basis 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vectors for any vector in that linear vector 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > space. For quantum systems, 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:30:26 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
>>> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
>>> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
>>> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
>>> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
>>> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
>>> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
>>> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
>>> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
>>> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
>>> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
>>> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
>>> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
>>> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
>>> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
>>> system. *
>>>
>>>
>>> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>>>
>>> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
>>> "argument" in favor of simultaneity*
>>>
>>>
>>> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
>>> unclear.
>>>
>>
>> *Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? *
>>
>>
>> It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely many 
>> possible basis.  Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while true it 
>> does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact about all 
>> vector spaces.  Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical victory by 
>> pointing out an absurdity.
>>
>
> *When I get no response, I assume I am not understood, or my point was not 
> well written. Moreover, I have stated several times that given the plethora 
> of bases, it makes no sense to single out a single basis and assert the 
> state of a system is simultaneously in the component states. AG *
>
>>
>> *Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few messages 
>> above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, 
>> you will see he essentially says the two states in the superposition he 
>> uses for an example, is tantamount to simultaneous.  Here it is: *
>>
>> *It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar 
>> relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we 
>> can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.*
>>
>> *The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
>> states. **AG*
>>
>>
>> No.  It would be the UP state.
>>
>
> *I think you're misreading Dirac's comment, which isn't clear, unless he's 
> referring to a change of basis. That would mean that when we measure Up, 
> the system remains in the superposed Up and Dn state. AG*
>
>>
>>> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
>>> assertion. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
>>> don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
>>> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited 
>> time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and 
>> paste your reference above. AG *
>>
>>
>> Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols.  Just go to 
>>
>>
>> http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf
>>
>> and scroll down the relevant pages.  It doesn't take more than 10sec.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Thanks. Time's nearly up here. Will do it tomorrow. AG *
>

*Do you mean the first two pages of the chapter entitled, Composite 
Systems? This is page 115-116 on the numbered pages. AG *

>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality. 
>
>
>
> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>
>
> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
> silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right persist, 
> they are up polarizations for 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>
>
> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
> at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any 
> particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
> orthogonal states.  
>

*When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which is 
also measured (by an SG device designed to measured spin?), and that the 
LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
persistent eigenvalue?*

*Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
-- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that we 
can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in the 
UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *

*HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
"rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, and 
since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the physical 
simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.*

*AG*

>
> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>
> Brent
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha 
> > scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, 
> > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, 
> > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, 
> > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   No. I am asserting that the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. Although I have asked several times, no 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one here seems able to offer a plausible 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition of states, is physically in all 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the system is measured. If we go back to those 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little pointing things, you will see there exists 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vector in that linear vector space. For 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quantum systems, there is no unique basis, and in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the interpretation is not justified. AG 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper, but that did not have much meaning 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (operationally, physically).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we say that the observable, in a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition state, has a ***DEFINITE*** value 
> > > > > > > > > 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:28:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 7:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
>> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
>> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
>> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
>> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
>> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
>> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
>> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
>> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
>> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
>> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
>> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
>> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
>> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
>> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
>> system. *
>>
>>
>> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>>
>
>
> *The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little 
> sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in 
> the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component 
> states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG *
>
>
> Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states.  His description 
> is completely arbitrary and applies to any states.  Does it make little 
> sense to single out North and East directions?  After all there are 
> infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used.
>

*Correct, but in his comment he's used the Up / Dn state of a SG experiment 
as an example.  But if there are infinitely many other coordinate systems 
-- which of course I am not disputing -- why assert any system described as 
a superposition in any particular basis, is physically in any, or all of 
the component states simultaneously? AG*

>
> Brent
>
>
>> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
>> "argument" in favor of simultaneity*
>>
>>
>> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
>> unclear.
>>
>> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
>> assertion. AG*
>>
>>
>> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
>> don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
>> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:24:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 6:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
>> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
>> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
>> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
>> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>>
>>
>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
>> directly measure C and always get c, 
>>
>
>
> *Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C is 
> not an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why do you 
> assert it is a superposition? AG *
>
>
> You just don't get it.  c is the eigenvalue of C.  C is an eigenstate.  
>

*Don't underestimate. Yes, if one gets c, c must be an eigenvalue of 
operator C.  AG*

BUT it's also a superposition of A and B.  It's a simple fact of vector 
> spaces that a vector can be the sum of other vectors.  The only thing 
> tricky about QM is that it's in a complex vector space so the vectors get 
> scaled by complex instead of real numbers.  And they are *simulataneously 
> *the sum of other vectors.
>

*The complex scalar field is not a problem; not even tricky. But a 
superposition does not necessarily mean the system is physically in both 
component states simultaneously, even if someone writes the state as a sum. 
That's what's assumed, without proof. Maybe I missed your proof or 
argument. AG*

>
> Brent
>
>  
>
>> but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c and 
>> then you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest example is SG 
>> measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin UP can be measured 
>> left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured 
>> up/down and you always get UP.  Any particular  orientation can be 
>> *written* as a superposition of two orthogonal states.  
>>
>
> *I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
> measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn.  In 
> any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*
>
>>
>> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
>> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
>> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
>> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
>> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>>
>
> *I'm OK with superpositions, only their interpretation of simultaneity of 
> component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and represent the situation 
> before measurement as a superposition and calculate probabilities, but the 
> assumption of simultaneity seems unsupported and produces apparent 
> paradoxes. AG *
>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
>> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
>> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
>> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
>> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
>> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
>> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
>> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
>> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
>> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
>> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
>> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
>> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
>> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
>> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
>> system. *
>>
>>
>> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>>
>> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
>> "argument" in favor of simultaneity*
>>
>>
>> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
>> unclear.
>>
>
> *Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? *
>
>
> It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely many 
> possible basis.  Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while true it 
> does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact about all 
> vector spaces.  Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical victory by 
> pointing out an absurdity.
>

*When I get no response, I assume I am not understood, or my point was not 
well written. Moreover, I have stated several times that given the plethora 
of bases, it makes no sense to single out a single basis and assert the 
state of a system is simultaneously in the component states. AG *

>
> *Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few messages 
> above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, 
> you will see he essentially says the two states in the superposition he 
> uses for an example, is tantamount to simultaneous.  Here it is: *
>
> *It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar 
> relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we 
> can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.*
>
> *The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
> states. **AG*
>
>
> No.  It would be the UP state.
>

*I think you're misreading Dirac's comment, which isn't clear, unless he's 
referring to a change of basis. That would mean that when we measure Up, 
the system remains in the superposed Up and Dn state. AG*

>
>> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
>> assertion. AG*
>>
>>
>> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
>> don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
>> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>>
>
>
> *Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited 
> time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and 
> paste your reference above. AG *
>
>
> Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols.  Just go to 
>
>
> http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf
>
> and scroll down the relevant pages.  It doesn't take more than 10sec.
>
> Brent
>

*Thanks. Time's nearly up here. Will do it tomorrow. AG *

>
>
>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 7:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a
vector in a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors
in some orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum
superposition of course, but worth thinking about. How many
decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the original
orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT
decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define
another uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a
DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to
say the original vector is in two states simultaneously in some
basis, when an uncountable set of other bases exist, each with a
different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it is natural and
convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which the system
is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which allow
other, different, decompositions of the system into
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on
the system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?


*The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes 
little sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and 
convenient (say, in the basis being measured), and assert the system 
is in both component states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG

*


Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states.  His 
description is completely arbitrary and applies to any states.  Does it 
make little sense to single out North and East directions?  After all 
there are infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used.


Brent




*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant
is unclear.


*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context,
why don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum
Theory: Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 6:50 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a
coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's
raise the level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no
intermediate result when the system is in a superposition of
states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key question: why does this
imply the system is in states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the
measurement? AG *


Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a
direct measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such
that you can directly measure C and always get c,


*Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C 
is not an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why 
do you assert it is a superposition? AG

*


You just don't get it.  c is the eigenvalue of C.  C is an eigenstate.  
BUT it's also a superposition of A and B.  It's a simple fact of vector 
spaces that a vector can be the sum of other vectors.  The only thing 
tricky about QM is that it's in a complex vector space so the vectors 
get scaled by complex instead of real numbers.  And they are 
/*simulataneously */the sum of other vectors.


Brent


but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c
and then you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest
example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where
spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at
random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  Any
particular  orientation can be /written/ as a superposition of two
orthogonal states.


*I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn. 
In any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*



This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a
superposition of states in some other basis.  But it is not
generally true that we can prepare or directly measure a system in
any given state.  So those states we can't directly access, we
tend to think of them as existing only as superpositions of states
we can prepare.


*I'm OK with superpositions, only their_interpretation_ of 
simultaneity of component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and 
represent the situation before measurement as a superposition and 
calculate probabilities, but the assumption of simultaneity seems 
unsupported and produces apparent paradoxes. AG *



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 6:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a
vector in a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors
in some orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum
superposition of course, but worth thinking about. How many
decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the original
orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT
decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define
another uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a
DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to
say the original vector is in two states simultaneously in some
basis, when an uncountable set of other bases exist, each with a
different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it is natural and
convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which the system
is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which allow
other, different, decompositions of the system into
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on
the system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?


*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant
is unclear.

*
*
*Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? *


It's a rant because you repeat several times that they're infinitely 
many possible basis.  Yet you make no argument nor recognize that while 
true it does nothing to contradict Dirac and is in fact a common fact 
about all vector spaces.  Yet you pretend you've scored some rhetorical 
victory by pointing out an absurdity.


*Is the intent to mock to support your thesis? If you look a few 
messages above, to where I underlined part of Dirac's comment 
reproduced in Wiki, you will see he essentially says the two states in 
the superposition he uses for an example, is tantamount to 
simultaneous.  Here it is: *


*_It requires us to assume that between these states there exist 
peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in 
one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more 
other states._*

*_
_*
*The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
states.**AG*


No.  It would be the UP state.




*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context,
why don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum
Theory: Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117


*Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited 
time until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please 
copy and paste your reference above. AG

*


Copy and paste doesn't work well with equations and symbols.  Just go to

http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf

and scroll down the relevant pages.  It doesn't take more than 10sec.

Brent




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
> system. *
>
>
> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>

*The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little 
sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in 
the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component 
states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG *

>
> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his "argument" 
> in favor of simultaneity*
>
>
> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
> unclear.
>
> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
> assertion. AG*
>
>
> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why don't 
> you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: Concepts 
> and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>
> Brent
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *
>
>
> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
> directly measure C and always get c, 
>


*Is c an eigenvalue of some operator? How can you always get c, if C is not 
an eigenstate of some operator? And if it is an eigenstate, why do you 
assert it is a superposition? AG*
 

> but when you have measured and confirmed the system is in state c and then 
> you measure A/B you get a or b at random.   The easiest example is SG 
> measurements of sliver atom spin orientation where spin UP can be measured 
> left/right and get a LEFT or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured 
> up/down and you always get UP.  Any particular  orientation can be 
> *written* as a superposition of two orthogonal states.  
>

*I'm not clear what a left/right measurement is, and how it might be 
measured. I assume you mean the directions perpendicular to Up / Dn.  In 
any event, how is this related to the simultaneity of Up / Dn? AG*

>
> This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
> states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those states 
> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as 
> superpositions of states we can prepare.
>

*I'm OK with superpositions, only their interpretation of simultaneity of 
component states. We can measure Up or Dn, and represent the situation 
before measurement as a superposition and calculate probabilities, but the 
assumption of simultaneity seems unsupported and produces apparent 
paradoxes. AG *

>
> Brent
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone 
> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane 
> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not 
> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking 
> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the 
> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT 
> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another 
> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT 
> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original 
> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable 
> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the 
> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the 
> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases 
> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
> system. *
>
>
> All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?
>
> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his "argument" 
> in favor of simultaneity*
>
>
> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
> unclear.
>

*Why characterize my comment as a "rant"? Is the intent to mock to support 
your thesis? If you look a few messages above, to where I underlined part 
of Dirac's comment reproduced in Wiki, you will see he essentially says the 
two states in the superposition he uses for an example, is tantamount to 
simultaneous.  Here it is: *

*It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar 
relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we 
can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states.*

*The "one state" he refers to is the superposition of the Up and Dn 
states. **AG*

>
> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
> assertion. AG*
>
>
> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why don't 
> you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: Concepts 
> and Methods" pp 50, 116-117
>

*Dirac isn't a good source? I am using a library computer with limited time 
until my computer returns from repair. So, if you can, please copy and 
paste your reference above. AG *

>
> Brent
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most 
everyone has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in 
a plane decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some 
orthogonal basis, Not an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of 
course, but worth thinking about. How many decompositions are 
possible? Well, rotations of the original orthogonal basis give an 
uncountable number of DIFFERENT decompositions. In fact, the set of 
NON orthogonal pairs define another uncountable set of bases, each of 
which results in a DIFFERENT decomposition. So in this example, it 
makes no sense to say the original vector is in two states 
simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable set of other bases 
exist, each with a different decomposition.  In the quantum case, it 
is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the basis in which 
the system is being measured. But even here, other bases exist which 
allow other, different, decompositions of the system into 
superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the 
system. *


All true.  True of any vector space.  SO WHAT?

*So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his 
"argument" in favor of simultaneity*


"simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph.  So your rant is 
unclear.


*of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an 
assertion. AG*


Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why 
don't you go read a modern version.  Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: 
Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
the level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate 
result when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. 
Nothing new here. Key question: why does this imply the system is in 
states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG *


Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or 
b at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom 
spin orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT 
or a RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get 
UP.  Any particular  orientation can be /written/ as a superposition of 
two orthogonal states.


This is true in general.  Any state can be written as a superposition of 
states in some other basis.  But it is not generally true that we can 
prepare or directly measure a system in any given state.  So those 
states we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing 
only as superpositions of states we can prepare.


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:01:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>>
>>
>> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>>
>>
>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>
>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>
>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>
>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>
>>
>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
>> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>
>>
>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
>> it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you 
>> are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
>> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
>> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
>> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
>> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
>> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
>> simultaneously in both. *
>>
>>
>> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
>> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
>> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
>> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
>> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
>> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>>
>> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
>> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
>> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
>> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
>> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>>
>>
>> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
>> calculation is the reality. 
>>
>>
>>
>> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
>> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
>> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
>> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
>> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
>> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>>
>>
>> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
>> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
>> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
>> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
>> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
>> silver atoms thru and SG in 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: 
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis. 
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality. 
>
>
>
> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>
>
> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
> silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right persist, 
> they are up polarizations for example; and we know they exist because we 
> can prepare up states and then measure them left/right or measure them 
> up/down.  The 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 9 luglio 2018 alle 22.46 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, 
> > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM 
> > > > > > UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, 
> > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 
> > > > > > > > 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, 
> > > > > > > > > agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 
> > > > > > > > > > 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition of states is wrong. Although I have 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > asked several times, no one here seems able to offer 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a plausible justification for interpreting that a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > system in a superposition of states, is physically in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing things, you will see there exists an 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for any 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > also infinitely many bases, So IMO, the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation is not justified. AG 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > but that did not have much meaning (operationally, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > physically).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can we 
> > > > > > > > > > > > say that the observable, in a superposition state, has 
> > > > > > > > > > > > a ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > No - in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > general - we cannot say that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > which we have no measurement operator or don't intend 
> > > > > > > > > > > > to measure; so we say it is in a superposition, meaning 
> > > > > > > > > > > > a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > our measurement.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Brent
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >  

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system 
>>> in a 
>>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the 
>>> superposition 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those 
>>> little 
>>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set 
>>> of 
>>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely 
>>> many 
>>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>>
>>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did 
>>> not have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>>
>>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>>
>>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we 
>>> have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it 
>>> is in 
>>> a superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going 
>>> to 
>>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>
>>
>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a 
>> sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 
>> 45deg 
>> you are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling 
>> North 
>> and East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only 
>> output "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the 
>> two 
>> and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of 
> a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such 
> as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and 
> undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a 
> calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
> superposition 
> in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality.
>


 *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
 superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
 sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
 simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
 rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as 
 reality 
 as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *


 You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
 you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system 
>>> in a 
>>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the 
>>> superposition 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those 
>>> little 
>>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set 
>>> of 
>>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely 
>>> many 
>>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>>
>>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did 
>>> not have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>>
>>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>>
>>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we 
>>> have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it 
>>> is in 
>>> a superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going 
>>> to 
>>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>
>>
>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a 
>> sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 
>> 45deg 
>> you are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling 
>> North 
>> and East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only 
>> output "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the 
>> two 
>> and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of 
> a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such 
> as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and 
> undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a 
> calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
> superposition 
> in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality.
>


 *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
 superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
 sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
 simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
 rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as 
 reality 
 as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *


 You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
 you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>>
>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system 
>> in a 
>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the 
>> superposition 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those 
>> little 
>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set 
>> of 
>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely 
>> many 
>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>
>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>
>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>
>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>
>>
>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have 
>> no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a 
> sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 
> 45deg 
> you are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling 
> North 
> and East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only 
> output "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two 
> and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>
> Brent
>

 *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
 basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
 Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
 simultaneously in both. *


 That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
 basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
 radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
 cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
 the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
 measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.

 *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such 
 as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and 
 undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a 
 calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
 superposition 
 in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*


 I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
 calculation is the reality.

>>>
>>>
>>> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
>>> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
>>> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
>>> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
>>> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
>>> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
>>> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
>>> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
>>> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
>>> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
>>> silver atoms 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in 
> a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those 
> little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have 
> no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>
> Brent
>

 *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
 Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *


 No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
 it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you 
 are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
 East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
 "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
 might call that a superposition of north and east motion.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
>>> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
>>> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
>>> simultaneously in both. *
>>>
>>>
>>> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
>>> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
>>> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
>>> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
>>> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
>>> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.
>>>
>>> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
>>> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
>>> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
>>> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
>>> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
>>> calculation is the reality.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
>> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
>> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
>> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
>> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
>> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>>
>>
>> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
>> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
>> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
>> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
>> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
>> silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right persist, 
>> they are up polarizations for example; and we know they exist because we 
>> can prepare up states and then measure them left/right or measure them 
>> up/down.  The latter, 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


 *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
 states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
 able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in 
 a 
 superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
 SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those 
 little 
 pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
 basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
 systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
 bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 

 ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
 have much meaning (operationally, physically).

 Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
 ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

 No - in general - we cannot say that.


 It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have 
 no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
 superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
 measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
>>> it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you 
>>> are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
>>> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
>>> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
>>> might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
>> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
>> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
>> simultaneously in both. *
>>
>>
>> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
>> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
>> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
>> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
>> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
>> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.
>>
>> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
>> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
>> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
>> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
>> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>>
>>
>> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
>> calculation is the reality.
>>
>
>
> *But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
> superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
> sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
> simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
> rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
> as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *
>
>
> You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
> you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
> wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
> fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story doesn't 
> show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are experiments, like 
> silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right persist, 
> they are up polarizations for example; and we know they exist because we 
> can prepare up states and then measure them left/right or measure them 
> up/down.  The latter, up/down measurement, would always yield "up" showing 
> they were in an up eigenstate, even though they were also in a left+right 
> superposition.  But there are other cases where we can't measure 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2018 11:44 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the
superposition of states is wrong. Although I have
asked several times, no one here seems able to offer a
plausible justification for interpreting that a system
in a superposition of states, is physically in all
states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the
system is measured. If we go back to those little
pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite
uncountable set of basis vectors for any vector in
that linear vector space. For quantum systems, there
is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely
many bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not
justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper,
but that did not have much meaning (operationally,
physically).

Can we say that the observable, in a superposition
state, has a ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for
which we have no measurement operator or don't intend to
measure; so we say it is in a superposition, meaning a
superposition of the eigenstates we're going to
measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of
our measurement.

Brent

*
*
*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state,
Decayed + Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both
states simultaneously? *


No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So
in a sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing
a heading of 45deg you are on a definite heading.  But you
are simultaneously traveling North and East.  And if someone
was watching you with a radar that could only output "moving
north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two
and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.

Brent


*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many
sets of basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45
deg direction. Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular
basis and claim it is _simultaneously_ in both. *


That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the
only basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical
example of a radar that could only report motion as northward or
eastward.  In some cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't
have instruments to measure the superposition state.  In other
cases like sliver atom spin we can measure up/down or left/right
or along any other axis.


*ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM
such as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is
decayed and undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using
such a state to do a calculation, but I think it's an error to
further interpret a superposition in terms of simultaneity of
component states. What say you? AG*


I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your
calculation is the reality.


*But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and 
radioactive sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed 
and undecayed, simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was 
arguing against? I have rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to 
interpret a superposition as reality as a proposed solution to these 
apparent paradoxes. AG

*


You just go around and around.  You never put together the explanations 
you get.  Decoherence shows that, in the presence of an environment, the 
wave function FAPP collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in 
fractions of a nano-second.  That's why the Schroedinger cat story 
doesn't show what Schroedinger thought it did.  BUT there are 
experiments, like silver atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of 
left+right persist, they are up polarizations for example; and we know 
they exist because we can prepare up states and then measure them 
left/right or measure them up/down.  The latter, up/down measurement, 
would always yield "up" showing they were in an up eigenstate, even 
though they were also in a 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
>>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
>>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
>>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
>>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>>
>>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>>
>>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>>
>>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
>>> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
>> Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>>
>>
>> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
>> it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you 
>> are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
>> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
>> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
>> might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
> basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. 
> Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
> simultaneously in both. *
>
>
> That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
> basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of a 
> radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
> cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to measure 
> the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin we can 
> measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.
>
> *ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as 
> Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do a calculation, 
> but I think it's an error to further interpret a superposition in terms of 
> simultaneity of component states. What say you? AG*
>
>
> I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
> calculation is the reality.
>

*But the consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that the 
superposition is imagined as reality, which leads to cats and radioactive 
sources being (respectively) alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, 
simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was arguing against? I have 
rarely, if ever, seen it argued NOT to interpret a superposition as reality 
as a proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG *

>
> Brent
>
>
>> *Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + (Decayed, 
>> Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would 
>> anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? AG*
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the
superposition of states is wrong. Although I have asked
several times, no one here seems able to offer a plausible
justification for interpreting that a system in a
superposition of states, is physically in all states of the
superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured.
If we go back to those little pointing things, you will see
there exists an infinite uncountable set of basis vectors
for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum
systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also
infinitely many bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not
justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but
that did not have much meaning (operationally, physically).

Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state,
has a ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which
we have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure;
so we say it is in a superposition, meaning a superposition
of the eigenstates we're going to measure.  So it does not
have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.

Brent

*
*
*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed +
Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states
simultaneously? *


No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a
sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading
of 45deg you are on a definite heading. But you are simultaneously
traveling North and East.  And if someone was watching you with a
radar that could only output "moving north" or "moving east" it
would oscillate between the two and you might call that a
superposition of north and east motion.

Brent


*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg 
direction. Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis 
and claim it is _simultaneously_ in both. *


That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of 
a radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to 
measure the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin 
we can measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.


*ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such 
as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and 
undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do 
a calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
superposition in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say 
you? AG*


I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
calculation is the reality.


Brent




*Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  +
(Decayed, Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's
the case, why would anyone think these states are in any way
paradoxical or contradictory? AG*
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>>
>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>
>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>
>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>
>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>
>>
>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
>> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>
> Brent
>

*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of basis 
vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. Thus, it 
makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
simultaneously in both. ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent 
paradoxes in QM such as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which 
is decayed and undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a 
state to do a calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
superposition in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? 
AG*

>
> *Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + (Decayed, 
> Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would 
> anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? AG*
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition
of states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one
here seems able to offer a plausible justification for
interpreting that a system in a superposition of states, is
physically in all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY
before the system is measured. If we go back to those little
pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite
uncountable set of basis vectors for any vector in that linear
vector space. For quantum systems, there is no unique basis, and
in many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, the
interpretation is not justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did
not have much meaning (operationally, physically).

Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a
***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we
have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say
it is in a superposition, meaning a superposition of the
eigenstates we're going to measure.  So it does not have one of
the eigenvalues of our measurement.

Brent

*
*
*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *


No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg 
you are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling 
North and East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could 
only output "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between 
the two and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.


Brent

*Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + 
(Decayed, Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the 
case, why would anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical 
or contradictory? AG*

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
> geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * 
>
>
> It is not for short time, it is forever.
>
>
> *No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
> the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
> short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to 
> decohere long before it is associated with any experiment. AG*
>  
>
> You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the 
> Copenhagen theory suggest.
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>
> Brent
>

*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? Same for cat, 
Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + (Decayed, Dead) ) for 
Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would anyone think 
these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? AG*

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
 occurs in that time before decoherence.

>>>
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>>>
>>
>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical
>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these
>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons
>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored
>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are
>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on
>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
>> geometry of your detectors.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI,
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. ]*
>

>
I've been watching this lecture series on that same question, and found it
to be good:

http://www.quiprocone.org/Protected/DD_lectures.htm

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 10:57, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 10^{-22}seconds. 
>>> The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus occurs in that time 
>>> before decoherence.
>>> 
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>> 
>>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
>>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
>>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
>>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
>>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
>>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
>>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
>>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
>>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
>>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
>>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
>>> geometry of your detectors.
>>> 
>>> LC
>>> 
>>> I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states 
>>> when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. 
>> 
>> It is not for short time, it is forever.
>> 
>> No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was the 
>> context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very short. 
>> I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere long 
>> before it is associated with any experiment. AG
>>  
>> You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the 
>> Copenhagen theory suggest.
>> 
>> No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states is 
>> wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to offer 
>> a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a superposition 
>> of states, is physically in all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY 
>> before the system is measured. If we go back to those little pointing 
>> things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of basis 
>> vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum systems, 
>> there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many bases, So 
>> IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG 
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here 
seems able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a 
system in a superposition of states, is physically in all states of 
the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we 
go back to those little pointing things, you will see there exists an 
infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for any vector in that 
linear vector space. For quantum systems, there is no unique basis, 
and in many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, the 
interpretation is not justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
have much meaning (operationally, physically).


Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?


No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 
> > > 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, 
> > > > > Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The 
> > > > > emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> > > > > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed 
> > > > > nucleus occurs in that time before decoherence.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > Is that calculated / postulated if the 
> > > > > radioactive source interacts with its environment? Can't it be 
> > > > > isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does that imply about 
> > > > > being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done 
> > > > usually with optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that 
> > > > techniques exist for making these sort of measurements and materials 
> > > > are such that one can pass photons through beam splitters or hold 
> > > > photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest. At higher 
> > > > energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very difficult. At 
> > > > intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons and 
> > > > mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things 
> > > > become impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for 
> > > > constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the 
> > > > light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. 
> > > > Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of 
> > > > your detectors.
> > > > 
> > > > LC
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a 
> > > superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat 
> > > alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and 
> > > undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of 
> > > those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum 
> > > of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components 
> > > in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> > > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as 
> > > a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led 
> > > to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of 
> > > decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions 
> > > because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. 
> > > Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, 
> > > even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. 
> > > These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum 
> > > superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the 
> > > superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to 
> > > calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the 
> > > state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there 
> > > remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition 
> > > from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the 
> > > measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than 
> > > accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO 
> > > doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what 
> > > amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be 
> > > viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > It is not for short time, it is forever.
> > 
> > > 
> No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
> the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
> short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere 
> long before it is associated with any experiment. AG
>  
> 
> > > You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is 
> indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest.
> > 
> > > 
> No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

But its probability of not having decaded goes down exponentially with a 
long half-life. And it would be in a superposition of decayed and 
undecayed for a long time.


We don't observe |decayed>+|undecayed> or |decayed>-|undecayed> because 
that would require an instrument for which that was an eigenvalue of the 
measurement Hamiltonian. Being classical beings, we don't know how to 
build such an instrumentmaybe when we have quantum computers?  Phil?


Brent

On 7/3/2018 4:52 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:18:25 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed
nucleus occurs in that time before decoherence.

LC


Hasn't the source had ample time to decohere way before you started to 
look at it with some instrument? AG




On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or
decayed - undecayed? TIA, AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
 occurs in that time before decoherence.

>>>
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>>
>>
>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
>> geometry of your detectors.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>
>
> It is not for short time, it is forever. 
>

*No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to 
decohere long before it is associated with any experiment. AG*
 

> You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the 
> Copenhagen theory suggest.
>

*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 

>
> An excellent book both on QM, interpretation and quantum logic is the book 
> by Bub. I am rereading it.
>
> Now, the MW is not so extravagant when you put it in the Mechanist frame. 
>

*Then Joe the Plumber has immense power to create universes. I don't buy 
it. AG*
 

> Indeed, it is expected once you believe that Diophantine 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:18:25 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>
> LC
>

Hasn't the source had ample time to decohere way before you started to look 
at it with some instrument? AG 

>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
>> undecayed? TIA, AG
>>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 10^{-22}seconds. 
> The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus occurs in that time 
> before decoherence.
> 
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with its 
> environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does 
> that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
> 
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical and 
> IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these sort 
> of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons through beam 
> splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest. 
> At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very 
> difficult. At intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons 
> and mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things become 
> impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for constructing 
> operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the light cone so 
> nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. Such physics is 
> relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of your detectors.
> 
> LC
> 
> I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states 
> when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. 
> If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing 
> things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors, 
> simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is 
> simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a 
> linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural 
> interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one 
> of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that 
> as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or 
> decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. 

It is not for short time, it is forever. You are just postulating that QM is 
wrong, which is indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest.

An excellent book both on QM, interpretation and quantum logic is the book by 
Bub. I am rereading it.

Now, the MW is not so extravagant when you put it in the Mechanist frame. 
Indeed, it is expected once you believe that Diophantine equations have 
solutions. All computations or histories  exist, with relative probabilities 
structured by the constraints of relative self-correctness. From that view, it 
is the uniqueness of the physical universe which seems extravagant, I would say.

Bruno



>  
> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>  Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
> undecayed? TIA, AG
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
 states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
 simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
 "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
 other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
 its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
 Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
 natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
 Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
 theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
 virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
 doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
 apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
 considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
 states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists 
 of 
 orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities 
 of 
 the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
 interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
 providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
 one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
 leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the 
 MWI, 
 or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
 above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
 exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *


 If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
 solve the problem of wf collapse.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
>>> professional "heavies" accept it? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight".  Chris Fuchs has 
>>> been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange.  The interpretation is 
>>> not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B 
>> and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given 
>> this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition 
>> where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A 
>> could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or 
>> non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an 
>> unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two 
>> states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum 
>> superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the 
>> person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the 
>> root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG *
>>
>
> ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems 
> the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, 
> inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position 
> simultaneously? AG*
>
>
> Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and 
> there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis 
> in which it is not a superposition.  But in practice we don't know what 
> that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize the corresponding 
> operator.  That's why a photon passing thru Young's slits is said to be in 
> a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and passing thru slit 2.  We know 
> how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 1" and we know 
> how to create an operator that measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't 
> know how to construct an operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 
> and slit 2".  We can write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 
> 1" and "passing thru slit 2" and it's a coherent sum, i.e. a superposition 
> of those two.  Decoherence theory says that we can't construct an 
> instrument 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/23/2018 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector 
and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. 
a basis in which it is not a superposition.  But in practice we don't 
know what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize 
the corresponding operator.  That's why a photon passing thru Young's 
slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and 
passing thru slit 2.  We know how to create an operator that measures 
"passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that 
measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an 
operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2".  We can 
write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing 
thru slit 2" and it's a coherent sum, i.e. a superposition of those 
two.  Decoherence theory says that we can't construct an instrument 
which will measure "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2" because such 
an instrument would quickly decohere into one of the two stable 
states "passed thru 1" or "passed thru 2" and the interference 
pattern would not form (in repeated trials).


I am glad that you seem to have finally got the point of the basis 
problem, Brent.


Yeah, I understood we were talking past one another.  You were 
considering changing to a different basis of measurement, not just 
expressing a measurement in a different basis.


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/23/2018 9:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret
a superposition of states when it is ostensibly
unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and
undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the
vector space consisting of those "little pointing
things", it follows that any vector which is a sum
of other vectors, simultaneously shares the
properties of the components in its sum. This is
simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since
a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this
interpretation took hold as a natural
interpretation of superpositions in quantum
mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I
don't accept the explanation of decoherence theory,
that we never see these unintelligible
superpositions because of virtually instantaneous
entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
doesn't explain why certain bases are stable;
others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a
linear vector space are equivalent. These
considerations lead me to the conclusion that a
quantum superposition of states is just a
calculational tool, and when the superposition
consists of orthogonal component states, it allows
us to calculate the probabilities of the measured
system transitioning to the state of any component.
In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there
remains the unsolved problem of providing a
mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the
collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the
measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an
unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of
the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't
explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather
executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the
paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as
nonexistent, or solved. AG. *


If you're willing to take QM as simply a
calculational tool, then QBism solve the problem of
wf collapse.

Brent


Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory?
Do some professional "heavies" accept it? AG


Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". 
Chris Fuchs has been the main advocate, but he's kind of
strange.  The interpretation is not widely liked because
it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.

Brent


*Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B
+ C, where B and C are basis states with appropriate
multiplicative constants. Given this particular basis, one
could interpret this equation as a superposition where A is
understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A
could be written in an infinite set of different sums using
orthogonal or non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of
uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted stretch to assume any
vector can be interpreted as being in two states
simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum
superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who
was the person who first interpreted a superposition in this
way, which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems
in quantum mechanics? AG *


... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way,
which seems the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in
quantum mechanics, inclusive of the idea that a particle can be
in more than one position simultaneously? AG*


Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis
vector and there is an operator for which that state is an
eigenvector, i.e. a basis in which it is not a superposition.

*
Can't any pure state be written as a superposition using another 
basis? AG*


Sure.



But in practice 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector 
and there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. 
a basis in which it is not a superposition.  But in practice we don't 
know what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize 
the corresponding operator.  That's why a photon passing thru Young's 
slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and 
passing thru slit 2.  We know how to create an operator that measures 
"passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that 
measures "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an 
operator that measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2".  We can 
write down the wf in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing 
thru slit 2" and it's a coherent sum, i.e. a superposition of those 
two.  Decoherence theory says that we can't construct an instrument 
which will measure "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2" because such 
an instrument would quickly decohere into one of the two stable states 
"passed thru 1" or "passed thru 2" and the interference pattern would 
not form (in repeated trials).


I am glad that you seem to have finally got the point of the basis 
problem, Brent.


Bruce






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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
 states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
 simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
 "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
 other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
 its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
 Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
 natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
 Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
 theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
 virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
 doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
 apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
 considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
 states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists 
 of 
 orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities 
 of 
 the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
 interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
 providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
 one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
 leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the 
 MWI, 
 or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
 above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
 exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *


 If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
 solve the problem of wf collapse.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
>>> professional "heavies" accept it? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight".  Chris Fuchs has 
>>> been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange.  The interpretation is 
>>> not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B 
>> and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given 
>> this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition 
>> where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A 
>> could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or 
>> non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an 
>> unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two 
>> states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum 
>> superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the 
>> person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the 
>> root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG *
>>
>
> ... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems 
> the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, 
> inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position 
> simultaneously? AG*
>
>
> Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and 
> there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a basis 
> in which it is not a superposition.  
>

*Can't any pure state be written as a superposition using another basis? AG*
 

> But in practice we don't know what that basis is and in general we cannot 
> physically realize the corresponding operator.  That's why a photon passing 
> thru Young's slits is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 
> and passing thru slit 2.  We know how to create an operator that measures 
> "passing thru slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures 
> "passing thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that 
> measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2".  We can write down the wf in 
> the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing thru slit 2" and it's a 
> coherent sum, i.e. a superposition 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a
superposition of states when it is ostensibly
unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and
undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector
space consisting of those "little pointing things", it
follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors,
simultaneously shares the properties of the components
in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore
surmise that since a Hilbert space is a linear vector
space, this interpretation took hold as a natural
interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics,
and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept
the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see
these unintelligible superpositions because of virtually
instantaneous entanglements with the environment.
Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are
stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases in a
linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations
lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition
of states is just a calculational tool, and when the
superposition consists of orthogonal component states,
it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the
measured system transitioning to the state of any
component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI,
there remains the unsolved problem of providing a
mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the
collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the
measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an
unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the
MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain
the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes
what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for
short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved.
AG. *


If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational
tool, then QBism solve the problem of wf collapse.

Brent


Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do
some professional "heavies" accept it? AG


Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight". Chris
Fuchs has been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange. 
The interpretation is not widely liked because it's the
extreme end of instrumentalism.

Brent


*Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C,
where B and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative
constants. Given this particular basis, one could interpret this
equation as a superposition where A is understood as being in
states B and C simultaneously. But A could be written in an
infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or non orthogonal
bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an unwarranted
stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two
states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum
superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was
the person who first interpreted a superposition in this way,
which seems the root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in
quantum mechanics? AG *


... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which 
seems the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum 
mechanics, inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than 
one position simultaneously? AG*


Of course in theory any pure state can be taken to be a basis vector and 
there is an operator for which that state is an eigenvector, i.e. a 
basis in which it is not a superposition.  But in practice we don't know 
what that basis is and in general we cannot physically realize the 
corresponding operator.  That's why a photon passing thru Young's slits 
is said to be in a superposition of passing thru slit 1 and passing thru 
slit 2.  We know how to create an operator that measures "passing thru 
slit 1" and we know how to create an operator that measures "passing 
thru slit 2", but we don't know how to construct an operator that 
measures "passes thru both slit 1 and slit 2".  We can write down the wf 
in the basis of "passing thru slit 1" and "passing 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
>>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
>>> solve the problem of wf collapse.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
>> professional "heavies" accept it? AG 
>>
>>
>> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight".  Chris Fuchs has been 
>> the main advocate, but he's kind of strange.  The interpretation is not 
>> widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B 
> and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given 
> this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition 
> where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A 
> could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or 
> non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an 
> unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two 
> states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum 
> superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the 
> person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the 
> root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG *
>

... *Who first interpreted a quantum superposition this way, which seems 
the root of many unnecessary, intractable problems in quantum mechanics, 
inclusive of the idea that a particle can be in more than one position 
simultaneously? AG * 

 

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>
>>
>> If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
>> solve the problem of wf collapse.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
> professional "heavies" accept it? AG 
>
>
> Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight".  Chris Fuchs has been 
> the main advocate, but he's kind of strange.  The interpretation is not 
> widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.
>
> Brent
>

*Let's go back to those little pointy things and write A = B + C, where B 
and C are basis states with appropriate multiplicative constants. Given 
this particular basis, one could interpret this equation as a superposition 
where A is understood as being in states B and C simultaneously. But A 
could be written in an infinite set of different sums using orthogonal or 
non orthogonal bases. So, given the lack of uniqueness, it seems an 
unwarranted stretch to assume any vector can be interpreted as being in two 
states simultaneously, If we drop this interpretation for quantum 
superpositions, most, possibly all the paradoxes go away. Who was the 
person who first interpreted a superposition in this way, which seems the 
root of many unnecessary, a[[ar problems in quantum mechanics? AG *

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a
superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible,
e.g., a cat alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive
source decayed and undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the
vector space consisting of those "little pointing things", it
follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors,
simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its
sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took
hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum
mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept
the explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these
unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous
entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain
why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori,
all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum
superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when
the superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it
allows us to calculate the probabilities of the measured system
transitioning to the state of any component. In this
interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved
problem of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE,
to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the
measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved
problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence
theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the
paradoxes exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent,
or solved. AG. *


If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then
QBism solve the problem of wf collapse.

Brent


Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
professional "heavies" accept it? AG


Asher Peres started it and he was a "heavy weight".  Chris Fuchs has 
been the main advocate, but he's kind of strange.  The interpretation is 
not widely liked because it's the extreme end of instrumentalism.


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:43 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
>>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
>>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>>
>>
>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts 
>> with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, 
>> what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with 
> optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for 
> making these sort of measurements and materials are such that one can 
> pass 
> photons through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in 
> mirrored 
> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there 
> are 
> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations 
> on 
> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
> geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>

 *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
 states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
 simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
 "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
 other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
 its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
 Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
 natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
 Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
 theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
 virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
 doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
 apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
 considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
 states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists 
 of 
 orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities 
 of 
 the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
 interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
 providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
 one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
 leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the 
 MWI, 
 or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
 above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
 exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *

>>>
>>> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you 
>>> say is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ." 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> *My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I 
>> don't believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create 
>> Many Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do 
>> you? I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector 
>> spaces. Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions 
>> aren't rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. AG*
>>
>
> There is no preferred basis in QM, and decoherence makes no reference to 
> that. Einselection says there is some basis that is stable on a large scale 
> for the emergence of classicality. This is not a well understood process. 
> This is in some sense beyond QM or where QM is in some ways incomplete in 
> its postulates or physical axioms.
>
> LC 
>

*It comes to the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:43 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts 
> with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, 
> what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>

 Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with 
 optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for 
 making these sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass 
 photons through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in 
 mirrored 
 cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
 physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
 nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
 elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there 
 are 
 procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
 and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
 phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
 geometry of your detectors.

 LC

>>>
>>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
>>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>>
>>
>> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you 
>> say is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ." 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I 
> don't believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create 
> Many Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do 
> you? I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector 
> spaces. Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions 
> aren't rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. AG*
>

There is no preferred basis in QM, and decoherence makes no reference to 
that. Einselection says there is some basis that is stable on a large scale 
for the emergence of classicality. This is not a well understood process. 
This is in some sense beyond QM or where QM is in some ways incomplete in 
its postulates or physical axioms.

LC 

-- 
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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>

 Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts 
 with its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, 
 what does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 

>>>
>>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
>>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
>>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
>>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
>>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
>>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
>>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
>>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
>>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
>>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
>>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
>>> geometry of your detectors.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
>> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>>
>
> You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you say 
> is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ." 
>
> LC
>

*My pov has no relation to, or anything in common with creationism. I don't 
believe Joe the Plumber can do a simple quantum experiment and create Many 
Worlds, each with a copy of himself, some with uncountable copies. Do you? 
I don't believe there are preferred bases in linear Hilbert vector spaces. 
Do you? But that's the claim of decoherence theory. My questions aren't 
rhetorical. I look forward to your answers. AG*

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
 occurs in that time before decoherence.

>>>
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>>
>>
>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
>> geometry of your detectors.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>

You seem to have backed yourself into an intellectual corner. What you say 
is a bit like creationists who say they "just can't imagine ... ." 

LC
 

>
>  
>>
>>>
 LC

 On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed 
> - undecayed? TIA, AG
>


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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *
>
>
> If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
> solve the problem of wf collapse.
>
> Brent
>

Thanks. I'll check it out. Is QBism a plausible theory? Do some 
professional "heavies" accept it? AG 

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and 
dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
"little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components 
in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since 
a Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took 
hold as a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum 
mechanics, and led to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the 
explanation of decoherence theory, that we never see these 
unintelligible superpositions because of virtually instantaneous 
entanglements with the environment. Decoherence doesn't explain why 
certain bases are stable; others not, even though, apriori, all bases 
in a linear vector space are equivalent. These considerations lead me 
to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of states is just a 
calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of orthogonal 
component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of the 
measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem 
of providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the 
collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. 
I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the 
extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't 
explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what 
amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can 
be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *


If you're willing to take QM as simply a calculational tool, then QBism 
solve the problem of wf collapse.


Brent

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
>>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
>>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>>
>>
>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
> geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>

*I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
"little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. *

>  
>
>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:

 Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
 undecayed? TIA, AG

>>>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>

Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
geometry of your detectors.

LC
 

>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
>>> undecayed? TIA, AG
>>>
>>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:48:53 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
>> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
>> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>

Odd isn't it, that the states which are unitelligible to us, are those we 
never see?  AG 

>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
>>> undecayed? TIA, AG
>>>
>>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>

Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 

>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
>> undecayed? TIA, AG
>>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Lawrence Crowell]

The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 10^{-22}seconds. 
The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus occurs in that time 
before decoherence.

LC

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
> undecayed? TIA, AG
>

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