Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-04 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Ah, thanks professor.


Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 

Yes, for the space scientists. However, for me, its what we can mine on Mars, 
using robots and ship to earth. We probably don't need to mine Mars, but the 
easier asteroid belt not far from Mars. 
Money-Materialism-to-Make-walking-robots-and-electric-cars-and-quantum-computers!
An equation may at some point a new vista in the human endeavor, but as you 
indicated, this is not clear..


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Aug 4, 2018 7:29 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 3 Aug 2018, at 23:36, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
equation help matters?





The goal is just to search the truth. Now, does searching the truth helps? That 
is not entirely obvious, and we all know that some lies can be more confortable 
for many people.


To be sure, we are dwelling more within a Universal Diophantine equation than 
in a Universal Turing relation, or in a universal combinators, as they do all 
the same thing. The point is that is testable, and I predicted the 
“many-worlds” from this, so an application is to derive physics from that 
universal thing, whenever shape it has (diophantine, combinators, etc.). 










 Help, our specie in either engineering (building new stuff) or mentally? 



The big bomb was the discovery of the universal machine/combinators/equation.


That just the Diophantine equation(s) provide(s) a universal machine or 
machinery blow the mind, and is very conuterintuive. How could a polynomial 
(whose exponent are finite integer) emulates (simulates exactly) the function 
sending the natural number x to x^x. Many mathematicians, including famous one, 
thought that this was just impossible. Now we know it is possible, and the 
proof has been constructive, so we can build a polynomial which indeed simulate 
a super-exponential function. This also solved one of the problem asked by 
Hilbert in his list of the most fundamental and important problem to solve: is 
there an algorithm telling us if a diophantine equation admit a solution of 
not. The existence of a universal polynomial solves that problem negatively. If 
such an algorithm existed, we could solve the halting Turing machine problem, 
given that for each Turing machine, there is a diophantine polynomial equation 
which simulate it exactly.








Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people gifted with 
tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure? 





Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 


Different mathematicians have different motivation. Some do it for the sheer 
beauty. Others because they are driven by the mystery. Still others search only 
Glory, etc.
Hardy, the number- theorist wrote an apology, because he did number theory only 
for beauty, and thought that none of his work could have any application. But 
the rise of computers and the use of number theory in cryptography has everyday 
application now, like when you are using a bank cart or an identity cart. In 
fact, most of pure mathematics get applied soon or later. Even “1+2+3+4+5+6+ … 
= -1/12” found application in quantum superstring theory. Some would say, OK, 
but nobody has found any application to Superstring theory, except to speculate 
on some way to marry QM and GR. Well, ironically enough, the boson string 
theory has found application in … number theory.










I envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!) 



Some people can be more gifted than others in some domain,but that does not 
make them superior. The great genius can say great stupidities, usually out of 
their field, but even in their field: they can miss the next revolution, even 
prevented it. Stupid people are only person lacking trust in themselves, and 
that is usually due to a problem of communication, notably of 
“love-communication”, very usually by parents having had the same problem. 
As a teacher, I have not yet met someone intrinsically stupid. I have met lazy 
people, shy people, or people deciding to be stupid, as it simplifies the life 
a lot,: they get an easy excuse for any failure, and they get free of 
responsibility and guilt. I have work with highly disabled people, some of them 
where unable to talk, but with computers I have seen that, well, some were 
lazy, other shy, etc. They were not stupid at all, just very handicapped, which 
somehow makes the handicap even more sad.
Intelligence can take many

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 4 Aug 2018, at 12:52, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> 
>> Honestly you fail to convince me of any physical influence at a distance 
>> brought by Bell’s inequality violation when studied in the MW.
>>  Bell and Aspect works remain for me only decisive evidence that collapse 
>> never occurs, i.e. an evidence for Everett or some variants.
> 
> I thought that this might be the case. You are beyond reasoned argument on 
> this matter because your mind is made up.

Sentences like that deserves you.



> But, although I have failed to convince you, I hope I might have had some 
> success in convincing some others that you are talking a load of nonsense.
> 
> For the interest of anyone who is still listening, I attach some more 
> detailed notes that I have made recently on the issues involved with Bell's 
> theorem and non -locality. These notes were made for my own use, so that I 
> could have extensive quotes from the original sources to hand, and to make 
> sure that I had my own thoughts and arguments clear. The notes may, for that 
> reason, be a bit repetitive, but I hope we can live with that.


I will read your text. I sincerely hope it will enlighten me, or that at least 
we can agree that we interpret the SWE and/or the collapse differently. To be 
sure I have already some problem with your use of the term “world” in the first 
pages …  but I will continue. I hope you understand Maudlin’s argument that the 
many-minds is local. My feeling is that you are introducing some implicit 
collapse, and apparently this is what you accuse me of doing. We share that 
feeling!

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> .
> 

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
t

All universal machine are born equal in arithmetic. And they all understand 
this soon or later. Now, some can make terrible detours, but that enriches the 
experience. The god of Mechanism is a baby, if not a terrible child. It plays 
the game hide-and-seek with itself, and lost itself frequently in what seems to 
be an infinite rabbit hole. He can wake up, or remain sleepy for long, very 
long, period. 

Best,

Bruno





> 
> Spud the peasant (grubby)
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 5:07 am
> Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
> 
> 
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker  <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the cat is always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence times in the 
> context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But if you insist on this, 
> mustn't the overall wf be a mixed state, making the radioactive source, and 
> so forth, also mixed states?
> 
> An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because it is 
> relatively isolated. 
> 
> An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it 
> is relatively isolated FROM YOU.
> 
> If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, 
> and explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact 
> with the atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be 
> contagious on your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” 
> see the atom like it has deciphered and lost its means to show interferences. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't radiate IR photons or have other interactions with the 
> environment.  Haven't you read Schlosshauer's paper yet?
> 
> Brent
> 
> AG
> 
> Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition with the cat used as a 
> starting point for your decoherence analysis doesn't exist as representing 
> anything, it's baffling that any conclusions can be reached. OTOH, if the two 
> component states are mixed, that's a fact that seems never in evidence, 
> certainly not in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG 
> 
> Brent
> 
>  
> 
> , you have a two state system using the standard interpretation of 
> superposition, meaning the system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
> mixed state. AG 
> 
> Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition of states? AG 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
> 
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
> nano-second.  
> 
> And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed out 
> the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, that the 
> system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG 
> 
> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
> 
> Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
> system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
> interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG 
> 
> ?? Any system can be mathematically represented as being in a superposition 
> of different basis states.  It's just a consequence of being a vector in a 
> vector space.  Any vector can be written as a sum of other vectors. 
> 
> OK, never had a problem with this. AG
>  
> Your use of the words  "interpreted" and "this interpretation" is unclear.
>  
> I am using those words as I think Schroedinger did, where he assumes a system 
> in a superposition of states, is in all component states simultaneously. It 
> is from that assumption, or interpretation, that he finds the contradiction 
> or absurdity of a cat alive and dead 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 4 Aug 2018, at 03:09, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
 On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices 
>>> of measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs 
>> in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will 
>> see the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical 
>> instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden 
>> variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on 
>> the first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural 
>> aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense 
>> of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, 
>> not involving the role of the person in the picture.
> 
> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. 
> You can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but 
> you cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum 
> mechanics, then it would be polite to stick to that theory.
 
 I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
 seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice 
 having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in 
 state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob 
 having the corresponding particle in state u). That would contradict the 
 rotational symmetry of the singlet state.
>>> 
>>> The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, ud+ 
>>> du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not rotationally 
>>> symmetric.
>> 
>> I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase 
>> e^i*theta.
>> 
>>> 
>>> You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it is 
>>> the same as in a collapse theory.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>>> In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded in the 
>>> single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally 
>>> symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon 
>>> as the spin component of one particle is measured in a particular direction.
>> 
>> In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory of 
>> the observer (or the local environment containing the observer.
> 
> That is a remarkably silly thing to say. The only thing in this context that 
> is rotationally symmetric is the singlet state itself.

It never disappear if there is no collapse. It leads to a more general singlet 
state.


> The laboratory in which it was prepared is not rotationally symmetric; the 
> apparatus that prepared it is not rotationally symmetric; the technician who 
> operated the preparation apparatus is not rotationally symmetric; the 
> experimenter who measures it is not rotationally symmetric.

Of course.



> So as soon as the singlet interacts with any of these things -- becomes 
> entangled with a non-symmetric object -- then the rotational; symmetry of the 
> state is lost.

I don’t see that. It is lost in each branch, not in the global wave.



> This is just elementary physics of symmetry principles.
> 
>> Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud
> 
> There, can't you see what you have just done? You have explicitly invoked a 
> collapse! (And there is a sill typo in the last part of the equation

OK. Sorry.



> -- it should read 'Alice see down du'. Alice can't see down from the ud 
> component!)
> 
> But if we write this out a bit more explicitly so that the tensor product is 
> evident (using Dirac notation) we have:
> 
>|Alice> (|u>|d> - |d>|u>) --> |Alice sees up>|u>|d> - |Alice sees 
> down>|d>|u>.

Right.


> 
> I have used the arrow (-->) to indicate that this step involves an 
> interaction between the singlet and Alice and her apparatus -- which 
> necessarily breaks the symmetry. (It is not actually an equality.) But  you 
> have collapsed the wave function in this step, because 'Alice sees up' only 
> on the first half of the original wave function, so that Bob necessarily sees 
> only the |u>|d> portion of the original symmetric state when Alice sees up -- 
> he then necessarily gets the correlated (Bob sees down) result when Alice 
> sees up (for aligned 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 19:24, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds 
> >>violates the know laws of physics
> 
> 
> >FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special Relativity.
> 
> Yes but that doesn't matter because it doesn't violate Einstein's greatest 
> achievement General Relativity, the improved and far more comprehensive 
> Relativity theory he came up with 10 years after Special Relativity.


I suggest you read Maudlin’s book “Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity”. It 
explains that all the troubles coming from Bell’s inequality violation are made 
worse when we go from Special Relavity to General relativity.
(And it explains also that Everett or its many-mind version remains a local 
theory). He admit at the end of the book that he made the obvious implicit 
assumption of “definite outcome for measurement” all along, but that non 
collapse in a non Bohmian context reintroduce non-locality, but for some 
reason, he disllike the MW. Yet, like his paper in philosophy of mind 
illustrates, he opts (like Bohm) for a non mechanist theory and defend 
materialism. He found the “movie graph paradox” independently and published in 
1989.



>  
> >It reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which makes 
> >few sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental violation, 
> 
> There is still no way to keep 2 clocks in synchronization unless you had a 
> continuous record of how much the 2 clocks were accelerating with respect to 
> each other and what sort of gravitational field they were in, and these weird 
> quantum correlations won't help. So I agree there is no instrumental 
> violation, but time is what clocks measure and if there is no way to keep 
> distant clocks in sync that randomly accelerate and decelerate then there is 
> no universal time .   

OK.

Bruno


> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, 
but the whole point is that it does if you take into account all 
Alices and Bobs in the multiverse. QM explains why in all 
branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation of Bell’s 
inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous causality 
on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in 
the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the first 
person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural 
aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the 
sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p 
theories, not involving the role of the person in the picture.


In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum 
mechanics. You can believe anything you like about your own private 
theories, but you cannot expect others to join in. If we are 
talking about quantum mechanics, then it would be polite to stick 
to that theory.


I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the 
one seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with 
Alice having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in 
state d (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state u). That 
would contradict the rotational symmetry of the singlet state.


The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, 
ud+ du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not 
rotationally symmetric.


I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase 
e^i*theta.




You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- 
it is the same as in a collapse theory.


?

In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded 
in the single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is 
rotationally symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is 
destroyed as soon as the spin component of one particle is measured 
in a particular direction.


In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory 
of the observer (or the local environment containing the observer.


That is a remarkably silly thing to say. The only thing in this context 
that is rotationally symmetric is the singlet state itself. The 
laboratory in which it was prepared is not rotationally symmetric; the 
apparatus that prepared it is not rotationally symmetric; the technician 
who operated the preparation apparatus is not rotationally symmetric; 
the experimenter who measures it is not rotationally symmetric. So as 
soon as the singlet interacts with any of these things -- becomes 
entangled with a non-symmetric object -- then the rotational; symmetry 
of the state is lost. This is just elementary physics of symmetry 
principles.


Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see 
down ud


There, can't you see what you have just done? You have explicitly 
invoked a collapse! (And there is a sill typo in the last part of the 
equation -- it should read 'Alice see down du'. Alice can't see down 
from the ud component!)


But if we write this out a bit more explicitly so that the tensor 
product is evident (using Dirac notation) we have:


   |Alice> (|u>|d> - |d>|u>) --> |Alice sees up>|u>|d> - |Alice sees 
down>|d>|u>.


I have used the arrow (-->) to indicate that this step involves an 
interaction between the singlet and Alice and her apparatus -- which 
necessarily breaks the symmetry. (It is not actually an equality.) But  
you have collapsed the wave function in this step, because 'Alice sees 
up' only on the first half of the original wave function, so that Bob 
necessarily sees only the |u>|d> portion of the original symmetric state 
when Alice sees up -- he then necessarily gets the correlated (Bob sees 
down) result when Alice sees up (for aligned measurement axes). 
Similarly, in the second part of the equation, 'Alice sees down' 
collapses the wave function to the |d>|u> component, meaning that Bob 
necessarily sees only |u>.


This is the mistake that Price makes in his Q32 that you attached. I 
have pointed this out many times, but it seems to have passed you by. 
This builds in the non-local collapse of the original singlet wave 
function right at the start of your argument. You split the wave 
function following Alice's measurement so that Bob sees only the 
correlated part -- he doesn't see a non-collapse singlet state! The 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
equation help matters? Help, our specie in either engineering (building new 
stuff) or mentally? Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people 
gifted with tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure? I 
envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!) and just 
wanting to place this in my own mind, being, a witless, dirty fingered, 
dust-footed American peasant. All the best


Spud the peasant (grubby)





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 5:07 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker  wrote:


  




  

If the cat is  always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence 
times in  the context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But 
 if you insist on this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed   
   state, making the radioactive source, and so forth, also  mixed 
states? 
  


An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed becauseit 
is relatively isolated. 



An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it is 
relatively isolated FROM YOU.


If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, and 
explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact with the 
atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be contagious on 
your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” see the atom like 
it has deciphered and lost its means to show interferences. 


Bruno









 It doesn't radiate IR photons or haveother interactions with the 
environment.  Haven't you readSchlosshauer's paper yet?

Brent


  

AG


  


Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition
with the cat used as a starting point for yourdecoherence 
analysis doesn't exist as representinganything, it's baffling 
that any conclusions can bereached. OTOH, if the two component 
states are mixed,that's a fact that seems never in evidence, 
certainlynot in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG 


  
 
Brent
  



   

  
 

  

, you have  a two state system using the standard   
   interpretation of superposition, meaning the 
 system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
 mixed state. AG 

  

  



  Isn't this the standard interpretation of a
superposition of states? AG 


  

  

 

 
  
  

  
 
  

  

  
 

  

It doesn't go awaybecause the 
decoherence timeis exceedingly 
short. 
  


Yes is does go away.  Even light
can't travel the length of a cat in 
   a nano-second.  


  

And for this reason Istill conclude 
thatSchroedinger correctly  
  pointed out the fallacy in
the standard interpretation 
   of superposition; namely,
that the system representedby a 
superposition, is inall components 
statessimultaneously. AG

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds
>> violates the know laws of physics
>
>
>
> *>FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special
> Relativity.*
>

Yes but that doesn't matter because it doesn't violate Einstein's greatest
achievement General Relativity, the improved and far more comprehensive
Relativity theory he came up with 10 years after Special Relativity.


> *>It reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which
> makes few sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental
> violation, *
>

There is still no way to keep 2 clocks in synchronization unless you had a
continuous record of how much the 2 clocks were accelerating with respect
to each other and what sort of gravitational field they were in, and these
weird quantum correlations won't help. So I agree there is no instrumental
violation, but time is what clocks measure and if there is no way to keep
distant clocks in sync that randomly accelerate and decelerate then there
is no universal time .

John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
> measurement angle.
 
 It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
 whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs 
 in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see 
 the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical 
 instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden 
 variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the 
 first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural aspect 
 (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de 
 Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not 
 involving the role of the person in the picture.
>>> 
>>> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. 
>>> You can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but you 
>>> cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum mechanics, 
>>> then it would be polite to stick to that theory.
>> 
>> I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
>> seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice having 
>> a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state d) 
>> with worlds with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob having the 
>> corresponding particle in state u). That would contradict the rotational 
>> symmetry of the singlet state.
> 
> The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, ud+ du, 
> is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not rotationally 
> symmetric.

I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase e^i*theta.


> 
> You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it is the 
> same as in a collapse theory.

?



> In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded in the 
> single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally 
> symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon as 
> the spin component of one particle is measured in a particular direction.

In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory of the 
observer (or the local environment containing the observer.

Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud
Bob(ud -du) = Bob ud - Bob du = Bob see down ud - Bob see up ud

Alice and Bob get their opposite spin, without transmission of action faster 
than light, still less instantaneous. 

If they measure in arbitrary direction, or the one to verify Bell’s inequality 
violation, the reasoning is more long, but see Price (below) for a good 
approximation.

If in some branches there has been a FTL action, you might need to explain to 
me how that is possible, and why to postulate this. It does not follow from EPR 
which assumes definite results for a measurement, where we get only definite 
result in the memory of the observer(s).




> The external magnet is not rotationally symmetric, so as soon as it interacts 
> with the singlet, the overall rotational symmetry is lost. That is surely 
> obvious.


The overall rotational symmetry is lost for the individual particles, but not 
for the state Alice + two particles (even if far apart). I mean the state 
(Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud)
 is still rotationally in variant.



> That is why I don't understand why you go on about infinities of Alice's and 
> Bob's who can measure in any direction continuing after the first measurement 
> interaction.

It only needs to the entanglement of the observers with the particles. No 
rotational symmetry is lost, except for the first person pop of the observer, 
but that is only because of their ignorance or abstraction from the real 
quantum state. You persist talking like if some collapse did occur after the 
measurement, but that never happens. So when we get (Alice see up ud - Alice 
see down ud), that is still equal to (Alice see up u’d' - Alice see down u’d’), 
as no collapse have occurred. We keep an infinity of worlds where Alice found 
always up, but with different spin direction. If the choice of direction was 
decided or not change nothing to this: because  (Alice see up ud - Alice see 
down ud) = e^i.theta (Alice see up u’d' - Alice see down u’d’), and the phase 
factor would not change the measurement that anyone could do in principle on 
the overall state (which would be technically difficult to here, but that is 
not relevant 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but 
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices 
and Bobs in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice 
and Bob will see the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this 
without any physical instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW 
theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. 
The MW theory is based on the first person indeterminacy, and 
illustrate the first person plural aspect (contagion of 
duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de Broglie, 
Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not involving 
the role of the person in the picture.


In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum 
mechanics. You can believe anything you like about your own private 
theories, but you cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking 
about quantum mechanics, then it would be polite to stick to that theory.


I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice 
having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in state 
d (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state u). That would 
contradict the rotational symmetry of the singlet state.


The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, 
ud+ du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not 
rotationally symmetric.


You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it 
is the same as in a collapse theory. In MWI you just retain all the 
branches, branches that are discarded in the single world theory. In 
both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally symmetric when prepared, 
but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon as the spin component 
of one particle is measured in a particular direction. The external 
magnet is not rotationally symmetric, so as soon as it interacts with 
the singlet, the overall rotational symmetry is lost. That is surely 
obvious. That is why I don't understand why you go on about infinities 
of Alice's and Bob's who can measure in any direction continuing after 
the first measurement interaction. The symmetry is lost, so there can 
only ever be four worlds: the uu, ud, du, dd, worlds that I have been 
mentioning all along. These are the worlds that survive from one 
measured singlet pair in MWI. Each branch of this can be considered a 
single world, and since the branches are disjoint, the relevant 
statistics must be separately satisfied in each such branch.


It is not actually very difficult to understand once you have broken the 
initial symmetry. A series of trials on such singlets will just lead to 
a branching tree of 2^N copies of matched Alices and Bobs. It is the 
fact that they always interact with the components of the same singlet 
state in each trial that keeps the worlds in order. But the measurements 
that each make are made non-locally. And the relative probabilities of 
their separate results (probabilities of the 'worlds' or 'branches') 
depend on the non-locally set relative orientation of their 
measurements. Bell's theorem is then just the observation that the 
observed correlations cannot be reproduced by a local hidden variables, 
such as would represent a 'common cause' that is carried along from the 
point of creation of the singlet. Bell's theorem applies to each branch 
in the many-worlds superposition and cannot be deflected by appeals to 
counterfactuals or any such irrelevance.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List


> Il 3 agosto 2018 alle 0.56 Bruce Kellett  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >
> 
> > > On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent 
> > > Meeker < meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work 
> > > > for all choices of measurement angle.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and 
> > > Alice, but the whole point is that it does if you take into account all 
> > > Alices and Bobs in the multiverse.
> > > 
> > > > > Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  
> > > Aren't you assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of 
> > > Alices and Bobs before this experiment; not just the few cases that arise 
> > > from the different experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  
> > > there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 
> > > 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from this ensemble.
> > 
> > > Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that 
> > clearly doesn't work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of 
> > unmatched Alice's and Bob's, and a major problem with non-local influences 
> > between disjoint universes in order to match any pair up. I think one can 
> > rule any such idea out very much more simply by just following the 
> > particles from a single entangled state to the respective experimenters. 
> > The statistics must work for such single-world pairs, so the invocation of 
> > infinite numbers of this or that is not actually going to help.
> 
> Bruce
> 


LEV VAIDMAN, 'Teleportation: Dream or Reality?'

'Consider teleportation, say in the BBCJPW scheme. We perform some action in one

place and the state is immediately teleported, up a local transformation 
(“rotation”), to

an arbitrary distant location. But relativity theory teaches us that anything 
which is

physically significant cannot move faster than light. Thus it seems that it is 
the classical

information (which cannot be transmitted with superluminal velocity) about the 
kind of

back “rotation” to be performed for completing the teleportation which is the 
only essential

part of the quantum state. However, the amount of the required classical 
information

is very small. Is the essence of a state of a spin-1/2 particle just 2 bits?

I tend to attach a lot of physical meaning to a quantum state. For me, a 
proponent of

the MWI, everything is a quantum state. But I also believe in relativistic 
invariance, so

only entities which cannot move faster than light have physical reality. Thus, 
teleportation

poses a serious problem to my attitude. I was ready to admit that “I” am just a 
quantum

state of N ∼ 1030 particles. This is still a very rich structure: a complex 
function on RN.

But now I am forced to believe that “I” am just a point in the R2N ?!

The resolution which I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the 
MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local measurement 
of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state  by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to be transmitted for teleportation of a quantum state—the information which 
world we

need to split into, i.e., what transformation has to be applied—is much smaller 
than the

information which is needed for the creation of such a state. For example, for 
the case

of a spin-1/2 particle there are only 4 different worlds, so in order to 
teleport the state

we have to transmit just 2 bits.'

 













hich I found for myself is as follows: In the framework of the MWI, the

teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some 
sense,

in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the 
necessary

item for teleportation, incorporates all possible quantum states of the remote 
particle,

and, in particular, the state which has to be teleported. The local 
measurement of the

teleportation procedure splits the world in such a manner that in each of the 
worlds the

state of the remote particle differs form the state by some known 
transformation. The

number of such worlds is relatively small. This explains why the information 
which has

to 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>>
You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and
you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years
away.  I flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of
heads and tails and then just one hour later you do the
same thing.


/
>
It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at
one location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds)
from the location they were created to Earth and Andromeda. 
It's because of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to
explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it would require
FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin./



I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference
between a communication and a influence and you're just changing
one apparently random sequence to a different apparently random
sequence and the only way to tell that something funney is going
on is when the two results are checked sinde by side which can
only be done at the speed of light or less. But if you want exact
then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin correlated
electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.


So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c, 
completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.


Yes, I had gathered that your idea was that there was a common cause 
effect in operation. That is just a standard hidden variable account. 
And that is what Bell's theorem rules out. No such local hidden variable 
theory can account for the observed correlations at all relative angles.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 00:56, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
>> On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >>> > wrote:
 
 
 Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
 measurement angle.
>>> 
>>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>>> the multiverse.
>> 
>> Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you assuming 
>> that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and Bobs before 
>> this experiment; not just the few cases that arise from the different 
>> experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  there are many Alices 
>> measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 27.5deg.  That's how you 
>> get statistics...from this ensemble.
> 
> Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that clearly doesn't 
> work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of unmatched Alice's 
> and Bob’s,

Only in different branches. In all branches their spin will match. Bob and 
Alice have no trans-branch interaction, which would introduce non linearity in 
the wave.




> and a major problem with non-local influences between disjoint universes in 
> order to match any pair up. I think one can rule any such idea out very much 
> more simply by just following the particles from a single entangled state to 
> the respective experimenters. The statistics must work for such single-world 
> pairs, so the invocation of infinite numbers of this or that is not actually 
> going to help.

The fact is that, experimentally and theoretically, a singlet state describe 
all spin result being accessible with equal probability. Its description in 
some special base is misleading here. 

Bruno




> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:32, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 If the cat is always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence times in the 
 context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But if you insist on 
 this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed state, making the radioactive 
 source, and so forth, also mixed states?
>>> 
>>> An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because it is 
>>> relatively isolated. 
>> 
>> An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it 
>> is relatively isolated FROM YOU.
> 
> That seems to imply the many-minds interpretation. 

It is. 



> I'm saying the atom is isolated from anything thing that would record it's 
> decay (including the cat).  If you open the box and find the cat is dead and 
> cold, you know that the cat died hours ago.  It was not in a superposition up 
> until you opened the box.

If the atom is in a superposition state, it will always remains in a 
superposition state like all atoms with which the atom will interact, including 
the cat, and including me when I will look at the cat. The linear contagion of 
the superposition happen to interaction. If the box in which the cat belong is 
well isolated, the cat superposition will not be lift to me. In practice, that 
is not possible, because we cannot isolate an object as complex as a 
macroscopic box, today at least.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, 
>> and explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact 
>> with the atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be 
>> contagious on your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” 
>> see the atom like it has deciphered and lost its means to show 
>> interferences. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It doesn't radiate IR photons or have other interactions with the 
>>> environment.  Haven't you read Schlosshauer's paper yet?
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 AG
 
 Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition with the cat used as 
 a starting point for your decoherence analysis doesn't exist as 
 representing anything, it's baffling that any conclusions can be reached. 
 OTOH, if the two component states are mixed, that's a fact that seems 
 never in evidence, certainly not in what I have read about decoherence 
 theory. AG 
 
 Brent
 
  
 
 , you have a two state system using the standard interpretation of 
 superposition, meaning the system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
 mixed state. AG 
 
 Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition of states? AG 
 
 
 
 It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
 
 Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
 nano-second.  
 
 And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
 out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
 that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components 
 states simultaneously. AG 
 
 It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
 objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
 
 Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
 system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
 interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG 
 
 ?? Any system can be mathematically represented as being in a 
 superposition of different basis states.  It's just a consequence of being 
 a vector in a vector space.  Any vector can be written as a sum of other 
 vectors. 
 
 OK, never had a problem with this. AG
  
 Your use of the words  "interpreted" and "this interpretation" is unclear.
  
 I am using those words as I think Schroedinger did, where he assumes a 
 system in a superposition of states, is in all component states 
 simultaneously. It is from that assumption, or interpretation, that he 
 finds the contradiction or absurdity of a cat alive and dead 
 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 
 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
>  
> >> the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and 
> >> the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than 
> >> light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my 
> >> magnet to there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if 
> >> I pick a number at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron 
> >> goes through and you also pick a number at random, Y, and set your 
> >> magnet to it then the probability your electron will make it through 
> >> your filter is   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your 
> >> magnet is 30 degrees different from mine the value of  the expression 
> >> is  .75,   so there is a 75% probability your electron will make it 
> >> through your 
> >> magnet, and if you happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 
> >> 100% chance your electron will make it through and if the angle 
> >> difference is 90 degrees there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron 
> >> knew what angle I randomly set my magnet to much faster than light 
> >> because until we check results side by side (which can only be done at 
> >> the speed of light or less) both records of electron that passes 
> >> through and failed to look completely random, but its certainly weird. 
> >>  
> 
> > The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin 
> > vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization 
> > I agree with the statistics given above.
> Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a 
> unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done 
> with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle 
> will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the 
> magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum 
> correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance 
> the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is 
> that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I 
> could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's 
> brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call   
> "up" even though they are now 2 million light 
> years away and the brothers were last in physical contact with each other 
> a million years before I was born.
 
 
 
 But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The 
 ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The 
 singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
 spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in 
 which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice 
 measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she 
 knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result.  
 With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but 
 with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
>>> measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>> the multiverse.
> 
> Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you assuming 
> that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and Bobs before 
> this experiment; not just the few cases that arise from the different 
> experimental results.

Yes, like David Deutsch … and Everett. If Alice and Bob share many similar 
singlet, each of them have the same probability of finding any spin. They are 
both maximally ignorant of the state of the particles, and that is translated 
into the fact that they are distributed on all worlds with spin in all 
direction (one by world of course). 




>   In this plethora of universes  there are many Alices measuring along 0deg 
> and many Bobs measuring along 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from 
> this ensemble.

Yes.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation of 
>> Bell’s inequality, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 2 Aug 2018, at 20:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> Not necessarily. The WM-duplication, like Everett QM,  illustrates that 
>> sometimes two events can be realised from a third person pod, yet only one 
>> event is realised from the observer’s pov, and that brings back a notion of 
>> first person indeterminacy, and notions of local probabilities, 
>> credibilities, plausibilities, etc.
> 
> But now you've invoked an ensemble of observers to go with the ensemble of 
> events and you've done nothing to solve the problem. And don't tell me the 
> observers will be "weighted".  That doesn't mean anything either.  The whole 
> point of physicists wanting an ensemble was so that they could explain 
> probabilities by counting cases.  "Weights" just obfuscate the problem.  If 
> we want to use weights we can assign a weight of 1.0 to the thing observed 
> and weight 0 to the rest.


By weight I meant the counting, well, the masure on some continuum, provided by 
the unique measure, provided by Gleason theorem, or its hopeful equivalent in 
arithmetic.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 16:38, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally 
> >>done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle 
> >>will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the 
> >>magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum 
> >>correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance 
> >>the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is 
> >>that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I 
> >>could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's 
> >>brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" 
> >>even though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were 
> >>last in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.
> 
>  >this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The ud - 
> du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The singlet 
> state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
> spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in which 
> direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice measure 
> her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she knows that 
> if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result. With one 
> unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence,
> 
> I don't have any big disagreement with that.


OK. It looks like Bruce disagree with this, but I am not sure why or how.


>  
> >but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case. The same 
> >for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the wave, but 
> >the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is violated, and 
> >if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in FTL, but if 
> >they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to invoke any FTL. 
> 
> The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds 
> violates the know laws of physics


FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special Relativity. It 
reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which makes few 
sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental violation, but that 
is the case of the fact earth theory too. 



> and both theories agree with all known experimental results equally well, so 
> how can one decide which one is correct? Until we get better data from some 
> new astronomical observation or exparament it all comes down to personal 
> incredulity; both you and I feel that although strange Many Worlds is less 
> strange than the alternatives, but others may feel differently. And who knows 
> maybe they're right, I doubt it but I've been wrong before.


In science, we can always been wrong. But some theories can be more plausible 
than other. I would say that any theory which introduce 3p indeterminacy and 3p 
physical FTL is less plausible than a theory which manages to make the same 
predictions (including the violation of Bell’s inequality) without introducing 
3p indeterminacy and non locality without any means to test it. 

Bruno

> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:32, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> 
> No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse yourself 
> by continuing to claim such things which are not part of quantum 
> mechanics.
 
 
  The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result when 
 coming back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and Bob are 
 space separated, I do not see how to give meaning to “to be in the same 
 branche”, and they might individually get non correlated spin measurement?
>>> 
>>> It is easy to see how they can be in the same branch, even if space-like 
>>> separated. I gave an account of how all measurements are made in the same 
>>> branch by starting with the time when Alice and Bob meet to compare notes 
>>> after their series of experiments and working backwards to show that, since 
>>> neither can jump between branches, all measurements must have been made in 
>>> the same branch.
>>> 
>>> You can do the same thing in the forwards time direction by considering 
>>> that the singlet is prepared in one world.
>> 
>> I cannot make sense of this. Preparing a singlet state is typically done in 
>> an infinity of “worlds” (or some very big numbers of worlds in some version 
>> of quantum gravity, but for simplicity I assume just “classical” QM). 
> 
> It makes perfect sense if you do proper quantum theory. There is no "infinity 
> of worlds". As I have said, that is your private misconception. As above, it 
> serves only to confuse both you and the issue.
> 
>> I have to go. Will read the sequel later. But it seems to me that you 
>> constantly postulate a collapse. The notion of singlet state is typically a 
>> many-world construction, even in Copenhagen before the 
>> "measurement/collapse”. 
> 
> You continue to confuse the rotational symmetry of the state with some 
> "many-worlds" conception. That is a mistake.


No, it is the only many-world interpretation of the singlet state. Alice has a 
the same probability of find u, u’ or whatever spin when she measure her 
particle.

The way you interpret the singlet state seems incorrect to me.




> And until you can rid yourself of this misconception you will never make any 
> progress. Sorry if  this seems patronizing, but you need to get these things 
> right.


Could you explain how you would interpret the singlet state in the MW theory?

Bruno





> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
>>> measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in 
>> the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the 
>> violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous 
>> causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in 
>> the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the first person 
>> indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural aspect (contagion of 
>> duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or 
>> Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not involving the role of the 
>> person in the picture.
> 
> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. You 
> can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but you cannot 
> expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum mechanics, then it 
> would be polite to stick to that theory.

I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one seeming 
to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice having a particle 
in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in state d) with worlds 
with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob having the corresponding 
particle in state u). That would contradict the rotational symmetry of the 
singlet state.

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruce Kellett

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

On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but 
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices 
and Bobs in the multiverse.


Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you 
assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices 
and Bobs /*before*/ this experiment; */not/* just the few cases that 
arise from the different experimental results.  In this plethora of 
universes  there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs 
measuring along 27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from this 
ensemble.


Something like that may be what is in Bruno's mind. But that clearly 
doesn't work either, because then we would have infinite numbers of 
unmatched Alice's and Bob's, and a major problem with non-local 
influences between disjoint universes in order to match any pair up. I 
think one can rule any such idea out very much more simply by just 
following the particles from a single entangled state to the respective 
experimenters. The statistics must work for such single-world pairs, so 
the invocation of infinite numbers of this or that is not actually going 
to help.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/2/2018 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote:


/
>
but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.
The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not
violated in the wave, but the wave explains that in each branch
the Bell’s inequality is violated, and if they believe in only
that branch, they have to believe in FTL, but if they take all
branches into account, I don’t see the need to invoke any FTL. /


The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds 
violates the know laws of physics and both theories agree with all 
known experimental results equally well, so how can one decide which 
one is correct


One should also keep in mind that the "known laws of physics" are 
internally inconsistent and hopefully subject to revision and improvement.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/2/2018 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker > wrote:





*If the cat is always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence times 
in the context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But if you 
insist on this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed state, making the 
radioactive source, and so forth, also mixed states? *


An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because 
it is relatively isolated.


An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU 
because it is relatively isolated FROM YOU.


That seems to imply the many-minds interpretation.  I'm saying the atom 
is isolated from anything thing that would record it's decay (including 
the cat).  If you open the box and find the cat is dead and cold, you 
know that the cat died hours ago.  It was not in a superposition up 
until you opened the box.


Brent



If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains 
this, and explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you 
interact with the atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it 
has only be be contagious on your own state, and like in the 
WM-duplication, each “copies” see the atom like it has deciphered and 
lost its means to show interferences.


Bruno




It doesn't radiate IR photons or have other interactions with the 
environment.  Haven't you read Schlosshauer's paper yet?


Brent


*AG*

*
Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition with the
cat used as a starting point for your decoherence analysis
doesn't exist as representing anything, it's baffling that any
conclusions can be reached. OTOH, if the two component states
are mixed, that's a fact that seems never in evidence, certainly
not in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG *


Brent



*, you have a two state system using the standard
interpretation of superposition, meaning the system is
in both states simultaneously, not a mixed state. AG
*


*Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition of
states? AG*

**




*It doesn't go away because the
decoherence time is exceedingly
short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light
can't travel the length of a cat in
a nano-second.

*And for this reason I still
conclude that Schroedinger
correctly pointed out the
fallacy in the standard
interpretation of superposition;
namely, that the system
represented by a superposition,
is in all components states
simultaneously. AG
*


It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't
apply to the cat or other
macroscopic objects, with rare
laboratory exceptions.


*Other than slit experiments where
superposition can be interpreted as the
system being in both component states
simultaneously, why is this
interpretation extendable to all
isolated quantum systems? AG *


?? Any system can be mathematically
represented as being in a superposition of
different basis states.  It's just a
consequence of being a vector in a vector
space.  Any vector can be written as a sum
of other vectors. 



*OK, never had a problem with this. AG**
*

Your use of the words "interpreted" and
"this interpretation" is unclear.

*I am using those words as I think Schroedinger
did, where he assumes a system in a
superposition of states, is in all component
states simultaneously. It is from that
assumption, or interpretation, that he finds the
contradiction or absurdity of a cat alive and
dead 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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark > wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch > wrote:


>>
the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach
magnet to and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and
is sent much faster than light, probably instantaneously.
Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there is a 50%
chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a
number at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the
electron goes through and you also pick a number at random,
Y, and set your magnet to it then the probability your
electron will make it through your filter is
  [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is
30 degrees different from mine the value of  the expression
is  .75,   so there is a 75% probability your electron will
make it through your magnet, and if you happen to set it at
the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your electron
will make it through and if the angle difference is 90
degrees there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew
what angle I randomly set my magnet to much faster than
light because until we check results side by side (which
can only be done at the speed of light or less) both
records of electron that passes through and failed to look
completely random, but its certainly weird.


>
The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts
of spin vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using
photon polarization I agree with the statistics given above.

Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. 
If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was 
originally done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach 
magnet the particle will be deflected up (relative to the 
orientation angle chosen to set the magnet at) or down 50% of the 
time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and one is found to 
be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other electron will 
also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the direction 
I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have 
picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother 
electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" 
even though they are now 2 million light years away and the 
brothers were last in physical contact with each other a million 
years before I was born.




But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this 
way. The ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all 
other bases. The singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have 
the same or opposite spin/polarisation and are correlated, but 
neither Alice nor Doc know in which direction. All they know is that 
there is a correlation. When Alice measure her spin, suddenly she 
knows in which “universe” she is, and she knows that if she met Bob 
again, he will indeed have the opposite result.  With one unique 
world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but with the 
"many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.


Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but 
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices 
and Bobs in the multiverse.


Maybe you are not explaining your theory explicitly.  Aren't you 
assuming that there is a multiverse (essentially infinite) of Alices and 
Bobs /*before*/ this experiment; */not/* just the few cases that arise 
from the different experimental results.  In this plethora of universes  
there are many Alices measuring along 0deg and many Bobs measuring along 
27.5deg.  That's how you get statistics...from this ensemble.


Brent

QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the violation 
of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous 
causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable 
theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the 
first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural 
aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense 
of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, 
not involving the role of the person in the picture.




Assuming that Alice and Bob measure along the same direction is a 
special case.



Sure.

Bruno




Brent

The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated 
in the wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s 
inequality is violated, and if they believe in only that branch, 
they have to 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Brent Meeker




On 8/2/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Not necessarily. The WM-duplication, like Everett QM,  illustrates 
that sometimes two events can be realised from a third person pod, yet 
only one event is realised from the observer’s pov, and that brings 
back a notion of first person indeterminacy, and notions of local 
probabilities, credibilities, plausibilities, etc.


But now you've invoked an ensemble of observers to go with the ensemble 
of events and you've done nothing to solve the problem. And don't tell 
me the observers will be "weighted".  That doesn't mean anything 
either.  The whole point of physicists wanting an ensemble was so that 
they could explain probabilities by counting cases.  "Weights" just 
obfuscate the problem.  If we want to use weights we can assign a weight 
of 1.0 to the thing observed and weight 0 to the rest.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally
>> done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle
>> will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the
>> magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum
>> correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance
>> the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is
>> that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I
>> could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's
>> brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up"
>> even though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were
>> last in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.
>
>
> * >this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The
> ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The
> singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite
> spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in
> which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice
> measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she
> knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result.
> With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence,*
>

I don't have any big disagreement with that.


> *>but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case. The
> same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the
> wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is
> violated, and if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in
> FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to
> invoke any FTL. *
>

The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds
violates the know laws of physics and both theories agree with all known
experimental results equally well, so how can one decide which one is
correct? Until we get better data from some new astronomical observation or
exparament it all comes down to personal incredulity; both you and I feel
that although strange Many Worlds is less strange than the alternatives,
but others may feel differently. And who knows maybe they're right, I doubt
it but I've been wrong before.

 John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:38 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/1/2018 10:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
 >
 *Forget collapse.*
>>>
>>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in
>>> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested
>>> in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
>>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would
>>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum
>>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
>>> about a wave collapsing.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as
>>> part of the axiomatic structure of QM.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a
>>> seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if
>>> we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it
>>> so mysterious.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But
>>> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those
>>> questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with
>>> "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except the one
>>> observed.  Is there really any difference between saying those other
>>> predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying
>>> they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes,
>>> "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts
>>> probabilities.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an
>>> idea about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.
>>>
>>>
>>> That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed
>>> that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since
>>> there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted
>>> the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least
>>> virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a
>>> probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities
>>> are fundamental.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better
>>> version of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the set of
>>> all consistent histories), and, at least in some book, just ask us to be
>>> irrational and to dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental,
>>> only to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that
>>> such a decision is irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike of
>>> find shocking the idea that all quantum possible outcome are realised. It
>>> is a bit like a christian who understand the evolution theory, but add that
>>> it makes just God having invented evolution instead of Adam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not observed
>>> and keeping that which is observed.
>>>
>>
>> It is irrational if it results in a significantly more complex, ad hoc,
>> or nonsensical theory.
>>
>>
>> So it's irrational if it postulates infinitely many unobservable worlds.
>> Nothing is more sensible than discarding that which is unobservable.
>>
>> See, I can be just as snarky as you.
>>
>
>
> I was being serious. This explains my position well:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/
>
> Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of
> certain theories.
>
> To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's
> legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if
> they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need
> not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of
> them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are
> our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that
> this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general
> relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we
> also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:32, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote:



No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse 
yourself by continuing to claim such things which are not part of 
quantum mechanics.


 The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result 
when coming back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and 
Bob are space separated, I do not see how to give meaning to “to be 
in the same branche”, and they might individually get non correlated 
spin measurement?


It is easy to see how they can be in the same branch, even if 
space-like separated. I gave an account of how all measurements are 
made in the same branch by starting with the time when Alice and Bob 
meet to compare notes after their series of experiments and working 
backwards to show that, since neither can jump between branches, all 
measurements must have been made in the same branch.


You can do the same thing in the forwards time direction by 
considering that the singlet is prepared in one world.


I cannot make sense of this. Preparing a singlet state is typically 
done in an infinity of “worlds” (or some very big numbers of worlds in 
some version of quantum gravity, but for simplicity I assume just 
“classical” QM).


It makes perfect sense if you do proper quantum theory. There is no 
"infinity of worlds". As I have said, that is your private 
misconception. As above, it serves only to confuse both you and the issue.


I have to go. Will read the sequel later. But it seems to me that you 
constantly postulate a collapse. The notion of singlet state is 
typically a many-world construction, even in Copenhagen before the 
"measurement/collapse”.


You continue to confuse the rotational symmetry of the state with some 
"many-worlds" conception. That is a mistake. And until you can rid 
yourself of this misconception you will never make any progress. Sorry 
if  this seems patronizing, but you need to get these things right.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all 
choices of measurement angle.


It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but 
the whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices 
and Bobs in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and 
Bob will see the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any 
physical instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT 
an hidden variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory 
is based on the first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first 
person plural aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable 
theory in the sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness 
are pure 3p theories, not involving the role of the person in the picture.


In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum 
mechanics. You can believe anything you like about your own private 
theories, but you cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking 
about quantum mechanics, then it would be polite to stick to that theory.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse yourself 
>>> by continuing to claim such things which are not part of quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> 
>>  The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result when 
>> coming back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and Bob are space 
>> separated, I do not see how to give meaning to “to be in the same branche”, 
>> and they might individually get non correlated spin measurement?
> 
> It is easy to see how they can be in the same branch, even if space-like 
> separated. I gave an account of how all measurements are made in the same 
> branch by starting with the time when Alice and Bob meet to compare notes 
> after their series of experiments and working backwards to show that, since 
> neither can jump between branches, all measurements must have been made in 
> the same branch.
> 
> You can do the same thing in the forwards time direction by considering that 
> the singlet is prepared in one world.

I cannot make sense of this. Preparing a singlet state is typically done in an 
infinity of “worlds” (or some very big numbers of worlds in some version of 
quantum gravity, but for simplicity I assume just “classical” QM). 

I have to go. Will read the sequel later. But it seems to me that you 
constantly postulate a collapse. The notion of singlet state is typically a 
many-world construction, even in Copenhagen before the "measurement/collapse”. 

Bruno





> The component particles move off in separate directions, but they can't jump 
> worlds either, so when Bob gets his particle to measure, he is necessarily in 
> the same world as that in which Alice makes her measurement -- the singlet 
> state itself guarantees that. Then they make their measurements: each gets 
> either up or down, so each splits into two branches. But the branch with, 
> say, Alice_up is connected with the original branch in which Bob sits. He 
> splits into two branches on measurement, but again, each branch is connected 
> with the original Alice branches. There are now four branches: 
> Alice_up-Bob_up, and so on for the other combinations. Each of these branches 
> defines a single world in which there are a pair of measurements. And, 
> because of the way in which these branches are always interconnected, the 
> results of each experimenter, if repeated many times, will always have the 
> correct quantum correlations. There are no other branches -- and no 
> unconnected measurements that have, somehow, to be discarded -- they can 
> never get uncorrelated spin measurements! 
> 
> 
>> Bell’s inequality will not been violated, because that Bob and Alice will 
>> never meet again. Each of them will meet only their relevant counterparts 
>> when they will “meet again”. 
>> 
 and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality 
 with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they are 
 are ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, with all 
 the correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a fixed base to 
 describe them).
 I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or 
 Kochen-Specker theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous action 
 at a distance. I have seen may attempt to prove this, but they always 
 favour a branch in a way or another, forgetting the probabilities bear on 
 different portioning of the multiverse in the big picture. 
>>> 
>>> Any evaluation of a set of correlations between experimental results 
>>> happens in one branch of the superposition. So much for "favouring a branch 
>>> in a way or another." There is simply no other way to evaluate the 
>>> correlations. There is no "big picture" that is going to change this 
>>> conclusion.
>> 
>> Then you assume some collapse.
> 
> As usual, that is your fantasy (i.e., a meaningless bolt-hole by which to 
> escape an inevitable mathematical conclusion). No collapse is assumed.
> 
 It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary relative 
 local appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. There are 
 none, but to show this, we must take into account the fact that Alice and 
 Bob find all correlated results in all directions.
>>> 
>>> Physics is covariant in any case. The non-locality is real -- it is not 
>>> just an 'appearance'. Bell's theorem and the observed correlations prove 
>>> this.
>> 
>> I don’t see this. The violation of Bell’s inequality is real, but without 
>> any collapse, all interactions are local, and spread locally fro the place 
>> where they have been done. That follows from the wave only, and that 
>> guaranties that Alice and Bob, when coming back, will see the 
>> correlation/violation, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If the cat is always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence times in the 
>> context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But if you insist on this, 
>> mustn't the overall wf be a mixed state, making the radioactive source, and 
>> so forth, also mixed states?
> 
> An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because it is 
> relatively isolated. 

An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it is 
relatively isolated FROM YOU.

If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, and 
explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact with the 
atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be contagious on 
your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” see the atom like 
it has deciphered and lost its means to show interferences. 

Bruno




> It doesn't radiate IR photons or have other interactions with the 
> environment.  Haven't you read Schlosshauer's paper yet?
> 
> Brent
> 
>> AG
>> 
>> Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition with the cat used as a 
>> starting point for your decoherence analysis doesn't exist as representing 
>> anything, it's baffling that any conclusions can be reached. OTOH, if the 
>> two component states are mixed, that's a fact that seems never in evidence, 
>> certainly not in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> , you have a two state system using the standard interpretation of 
>> superposition, meaning the system is in both states simultaneously, not a 
>> mixed state. AG 
>> 
>> Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition of states? AG 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
>> 
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
>> nano-second.  
>> 
>> And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed out 
>> the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, that 
>> the system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
>> simultaneously. AG 
>> 
>> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
>> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
>> 
>> Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
>> system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
>> interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG 
>> 
>> ?? Any system can be mathematically represented as being in a superposition 
>> of different basis states.  It's just a consequence of being a vector in a 
>> vector space.  Any vector can be written as a sum of other vectors. 
>> 
>> OK, never had a problem with this. AG
>>  
>> Your use of the words  "interpreted" and "this interpretation" is unclear.
>>  
>> I am using those words as I think Schroedinger did, where he assumes a 
>> system in a superposition of states, is in all component states 
>> simultaneously. It is from that assumption, or interpretation, that he finds 
>> the contradiction or absurdity of a cat alive and dead 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 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:50, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.
> 
> 
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that this 
> is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by 
> the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum mechanics (unless 
> of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the wave, which for me just 
> means that QM is false). 
> 
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is relative 
> to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal 
> measurements are projection operators that leave the system in an eigenstate 
> of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM.  All the 
> measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are destructive 
> measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a 
> complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates that will 
> provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a certain choice 
> of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the mathematics says 
> there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general we 
> don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically 
> implementing it.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement. 
> 
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
> 
> I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is that 
> before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, one of 
> which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for situations 
> where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we don't know 
> what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In the 
> case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we 
> have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, 
> implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
> 
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
> 
> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat is 
> initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, IMO, the 
> problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.
> 
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at least 
> several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat is 
> always in a classical state between |alive> and |dead>. These are never in 
> superposition. 
> 
> 
> When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't you 
> assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say it 
> later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG 
> 
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the absurdity...not 
> that it exists in a superposition later.
> 
> But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based on 
> decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the apparatus, 
> observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be initially isolated 
> for this to make sense? AG
> 
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, he 
> just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. in 
> the idea that a cat could 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch >> > wrote:
>>>  
>>> >> the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and 
>>> >> the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than 
>>> >> light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet 
>>> >> to there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a 
>>> >> number at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes 
>>> >> through and you also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to 
>>> >> it then the probability your electron will make it through your filter 
>>> >> is   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 
>>> >> degrees different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so 
>>> >> there is a 75% probability your electron will make it through your 
>>> >> magnet, and if you happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 
>>> >> 100% chance your electron will make it through and if the angle 
>>> >> difference is 90 degrees there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron 
>>> >> knew what angle I randomly set my magnet to much faster than light 
>>> >> because until we check results side by side (which can only be done at 
>>> >> the speed of light or less) both records of electron that passes through 
>>> >> and failed to look completely random, but its certainly weird.  
>>> 
>>> > The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin 
>>> > vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I 
>>> > agree with the statistics given above.
>>> Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a 
>>> unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done 
>>> with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle will 
>>> be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the magnet 
>>> at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and 
>>> one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other 
>>> electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the 
>>> direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have 
>>> picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother 
>>> electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" even 
>>> though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were last 
>>> in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The 
>> ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The 
>> singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
>> spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in 
>> which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice 
>> measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she 
>> knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result.  
>> With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but 
>> with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.
> 
> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices of 
> measurement angle.

It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the whole 
point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs in the 
multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will see the 
violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical instantaneous 
causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden variable theory in the 
sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on the first person indeterminacy, 
and illustrate the first person plural aspect (contagion of duplication). 
Hidden variable theory in the sense of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein 
incompleteness are pure 3p theories, not involving the role of the person in 
the picture.



> Assuming that Alice and Bob measure along the same direction is a special 
> case.


Sure. 

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the 
>> wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is 
>> violated, and if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in 
>> FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to 
>> invoke any FTL. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> > However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with 
>>> > large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated 
>>> > photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any 
>>> > particular measurement of any 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 20:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2018 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 07:49, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker >>> > wrote:
 
 
 On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> and claims the system being measured is physically in all 
>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
> 
> 
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree 
> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer 
> particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of 
> elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you add the 
> unintelligible collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM 
> is false). 
 
 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are 
 rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit 
 examples are destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a 
 mathematical convenience, using a complete set of commuting operators 
 to define a set of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but 
 remember that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis.  The 
 system is always in just one state and the mathematics says there is 
 some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general we 
 don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically 
 implementing it.
 
 Brent
 
 I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I 
 am assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a 
 complete set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this 
 basis, and that this representation corresponds to the state of the 
 system before measurement. 
>>> 
>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>>> complete basis...but OK.
>>> 
 I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition 
 is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. 
 I do allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of 
 eigenstates even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up 
 + Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the 
 hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, 
 which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is 
 alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
>>> 
>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not 
>>> even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in 
>>> fact impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if 
>>> absurd).
>>> 
>>> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. 
>>> So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.
>> 
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the 
>> cat is always in a classical 
>> state between |alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition. 
>> 
>>> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
>> 
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
>> nano-second.  

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 20:52, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2018 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 02:11, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.
 
 
 Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
 this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
 i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
 mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
 wave, which for me just means that QM is   
   false). 
 
 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
 in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
 are destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
 convenience, using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set 
 of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just 
 mathematics, a certain choice of basis.
   The system is always in just one state and the mathematics says 
 there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general 
 we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically 
 implementing it.
 
 Brent
 
 I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
 assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a 
 complete set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, 
 and that this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
 measurement. 
 
 In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
 complete basis...but OK.
 
 I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
 that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
 one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
 situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
 we don't know what the operator is,
  such as the Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, 
 using the hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two 
 eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies the 
 cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
 
 Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
 would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
 photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
 realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
 
 CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat 
 is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
 IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.
 
 Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
 least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the 
 cat is always in a classical state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
 never in superposition. 
 
 
 When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
 you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
 it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not 
 a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG 
 
 That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
 absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
 
 But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based on 
 decoherence theory and the wf you write, taking 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 20:49, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2018 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 22:02, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2018 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> >> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe 
>> >> in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
>> >> interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a 
>> >> meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that feels 
>> >> unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding about 
>> >> what's going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is nothing 
>> >> in the mathematics that says anything about a wave
>> >>collapsing. 
>> 
>> > That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule 
>> > as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  
>> 
>> 
>>  A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule 
>> is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles
> 
> ??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"??  What 
> "first principles"?  Have you gone platonic on us?
> 
>> it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, for 
>> some strange reason the damn thing works.
> 
> Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to 
> put a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited the rule 
> (and actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason 
> proved it in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived 
> from first principles" than does Schroedinger's equation or matrix 
> mechanics. 
 
 
 Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and with 
 Church thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to derive 
 matrix mechanics from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, and certainly 
 something like at least one universal machinery, like elementary 
 arithmetic or the combinators.
 
 
 
> 
> The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which 
> nobody liked at the time because they could only think of probability as 
> ignorance about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt.
 
 I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood 
 Everett (after mocking him if I remember well).
>>> 
>>> I was referring to the fact that it was Dewitt who invented the 
>>> mulitple-world interpretation.  Everett called it "the relative state" 
>>> interpretation, and didn't consider multiple worlds. 
>> 
>> 
>> Everett was asked by its publisher to not use the expression “parallel 
>> universes”, "many-worlds”, and said, according to some biographer, that he 
>> regretted this. Personally I prefer “relative sate”, but all this just 
>> allude to one and the same theory: QM-without-collapse. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 
 
> 
>> Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces a 
>> probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is made, 
>> but the mathematics can't say when that happens because it doesn't say 
>> what a observation is.
> 
> Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply 
> it.  
 
 That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
 mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of 
 beliefs).
>>> 
>>> Interpreting arithmetical equations as sets of beliefs is already 
>>> interpretation.
>> 
>> With mechanism, that is the same as your consciousness:
> 
> 
> "With mechanism" all things follow since you just made up the term.


I do not understand. Mechanism is simply the idea that our body does not 
involve magical things, nor actual infinities. 



> 
>> it is an interpretation of the set of arithmetical semi-computable relations 
>> implemented by your brain relatively to computations in arithmetic. Adding a 
>> universe or a god, other than arithmetic or combinators cannot work, as a 
>> universal machine cannot distinguish a physical and an arithmetical reality 
>> (except experimentally).
> 
> A notable exception.

Yes, that is why we can test mechanism. But it is irrelevant for defending your 
point: in the self-duplication, you will feel reconstituted (or not) before you 
get the time to test for physicalness or arithmeticalness.



> 
>> You could say that intepretating schroedinger equation as a propagating wave 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 20:39, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>   > Forget collapse.
>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in 
>> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
>> interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a 
>> meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that feels 
>> unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding about what's 
>> going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is nothing in the 
>> mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing. 
>> 
> 
> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as 
> part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  
 
 In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a 
 seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden 
 if we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.
 
 
 
> 
>> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it 
>> so mysterious. 
>> 
> 
> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:
 
 Ah! Exactly.
 
 
 
> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But 
> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those 
> questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with 
> "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except the one 
> observed.  Is there really any difference between saying those other 
> predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying 
> they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes, 
> "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts 
> probabilities.”
 
 
 OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea 
 about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.
>>> 
>>> That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed that 
>>> probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since there 
>>> was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted the 
>>> idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least 
>>> virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a 
>>> probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities 
>>> are fundamental. 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better version 
>> of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the set of all 
>> consistent histories), and, at least in some book, just ask us to be 
>> irrational and to dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental, only 
>> to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that such a 
>> decision is irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike of find 
>> shocking the idea that all quantum possible outcome are realised. It is a 
>> bit like a christian who understand the evolution theory, but add that it 
>> makes just God having invented evolution instead of Adam. 
> 
> 
> There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not observed and 
> keeping that which is observed.  That's what probability means: somethings 
> happen and some don't. 


I agree. We do that automatically in dreams too. That does not mean that what 
we observe is the real thing. It can be a shadow of something else, or an 
hallucination.



> The idea that all the possibilities happen is what has made MWI incoherent. 


The MW does not entail that all possibilities happen.



> Gleason's theorem supports the use of the Born rule to define a probability 
> measure; but the problem is the metaphysical one of whether there is any 
> meaning to "probability" when everything happens.


Even if everything happen, each thing could be weighted differently. QM do 
predict that if you jump out of the window, there is a high probability you get 
badly wounded. That is why we have probabilities, and why we are concerned 
about what the probabilities can be applied.




> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Everett's MWI is appealing to the same intuition...that probabilities must 
>>> refer to ensembles. 
>> 
>> Wich in my opinion is the only way to make sense of any notion of 
>> probabilities. You need a space or set of events too which the probabilities 
>> applies.  
> 
> But it must be an ensemble from which somethings happen and some don’t.


Not necessarily. The WM-duplication, like 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 10:39:52 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/1/2018 2:57 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 9:36:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 1:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>
>>
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>> physically implementing it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
>> never in superposition. 
>>
>>
>>
>> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, 
>> don't you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if 
>> you say it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is 
>> this not a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>>
>>
>> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
>> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>>
>>
>> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
>> on decoherence theory and the wf 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 10:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:34 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:


>
/Forget collapse./

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because
they believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum
interpretation and are only interested in predicting how
far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in
a particular experiment. But for some of us that feels
unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper
understanding about what's going on at the quantum level
and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that
says anything about a wave collapsing.



That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included
the Born rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.


In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of
observer, and a seemingly forbidden process, a projection
(a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if we apply the wave to the
couple observer-particle.






Most of all they want to know what exactly is
a "measurement" and why it so mysterious.



The problem with the Born rule was that its application
was ambiguous:


Ah! Exactly.




Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis"
preferred?  But decoherence theory has given answers (at
least partially) to those questions.  Given those
answers, one can just replace "collapse" with "discard",
i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except
the one observed.  Is there really any difference between
saying those other predictions of the wf are in
orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just
didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach. He
writes, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so
it only predicts probabilities.”



OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like
to have an idea about what are those probabilities about,
and where they come from.


That was the source of resistance to Born's paper. 
Physicists assumed that probability could only arise from
ignorance of an ensemble.  Since there was no ensemble in
Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted the
idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles,
or at least virtual ensembles, so that they could feel
comfortable with having a probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is
just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities are fundamental.



Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its
own better version of Everett). Then, this introduces a
notion of ensemble (the set of all consistent histories),
and, at least in some book, just ask us to be irrational and
to dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental,
only to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he
lakes clear that such a decision is irrational, and that he
makes it because he dislike of find shocking the idea that
all quantum possible outcome are realised. It is a bit like
a christian who understand the evolution theory, but add
that it makes just God having invented evolution instead of
Adam.



There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not
observed and keeping that which is observed.


It is irrational if it results in a significantly more complex,
ad hoc, or nonsensical theory.


So it's irrational if it postulates infinitely many unobservable
worlds.  Nothing is more sensible than discarding that which is
unobservable.

See, I can be just as snarky as you.



I was being serious. This explains my position well: 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/


Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions
of certain theories.

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's
legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences
even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be
falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its
predictions, merely at least one of them. My answer to (4) is
therefore that what's scientifically testable are our mathematical
theories, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> *Forget collapse.*
>>
>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in
>> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested
>> in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would
>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum
>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
>> about a wave collapsing.
>>
>>
>> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as
>> part of the axiomatic structure of QM.
>>
>>
>> In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a
>> seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if
>> we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it
>> so mysterious.
>>
>>
>> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:
>>
>>
>> Ah! Exactly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But
>> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those
>> questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with
>> "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except the one
>> observed.  Is there really any difference between saying those other
>> predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying
>> they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes,
>> "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts
>> probabilities.”
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea
>> about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.
>>
>>
>> That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed
>> that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since
>> there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted
>> the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least
>> virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a
>> probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities
>> are fundamental.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better
>> version of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the set of
>> all consistent histories), and, at least in some book, just ask us to be
>> irrational and to dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental,
>> only to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that
>> such a decision is irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike of
>> find shocking the idea that all quantum possible outcome are realised. It
>> is a bit like a christian who understand the evolution theory, but add that
>> it makes just God having invented evolution instead of Adam.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not observed
>> and keeping that which is observed.
>>
>
> It is irrational if it results in a significantly more complex, ad hoc, or
> nonsensical theory.
>
>
> So it's irrational if it postulates infinitely many unobservable worlds.
> Nothing is more sensible than discarding that which is unobservable.
>
> See, I can be just as snarky as you.
>


I was being serious. This explains my position well:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of
certain theories.

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's
legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if
they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need
not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of
them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are
our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that
this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general
relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we
also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, e.g.,
what happens inside black holes.
Likewise, if we're impressed by the successful predictions of inflation or
quantum mechanics so far, then we need to take seriously also their other
predictions, including the Level I and Level III multiverse. 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:


>
/Forget collapse./

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they
believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation
and are only interested in predicting how far to the right a
indicator needle on a meter moves in a particular experiment.
But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would like to
have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the
quantum level and wonder why there is nothing in the
mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing.



That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the
Born rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.


In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer,
and a seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I
mean forbidden if we apply the wave to the couple
observer-particle.






Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement"
and why it so mysterious.



The problem with the Born rule was that its application was
ambiguous:


Ah! Exactly.




Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis"
preferred?  But decoherence theory has given answers (at least
partially) to those questions.  Given those answers, one can
just replace "collapse" with "discard", i.e. discard all the
predicted possible results except the one observed.  Is there
really any difference between saying those other predictions
of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying
they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He
writes, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it
only predicts probabilities.”



OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to
have an idea about what are those probabilities about, and
where they come from.


That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists
assumed that probability could only arise from ignorance of an
ensemble. Since there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or
Schroedinger's) QM they resisted the idea.  Lots of attempts
were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least virtual
ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a
probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!";
probabilities are fundamental.



Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own
better version of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of
ensemble (the set of all consistent histories), and, at least in
some book, just ask us to be irrational and to dismiss the
ensemble at make probability fundamental, only to make the “other
worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that such a
decision is irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike
of find shocking the idea that all quantum possible outcome are
realised. It is a bit like a christian who understand the
evolution theory, but add that it makes just God having invented
evolution instead of Adam.



There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not
observed and keeping that which is observed.


It is irrational if it results in a significantly more complex, ad 
hoc, or nonsensical theory.


So it's irrational if it postulates infinitely many unobservable 
worlds.  Nothing is more sensible than discarding that which is 
unobservable.


See, I can be just as snarky as you.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote:



No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse 
yourself by continuing to claim such things which are not part of 
quantum mechanics.


 The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result 
when coming back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and Bob 
are space separated, I do not see how to give meaning to “to be in the 
same branche”, and they might individually get non correlated spin 
measurement?


It is easy to see how they can be in the same branch, even if space-like 
separated. I gave an account of how all measurements are made in the 
same branch by starting with the time when Alice and Bob meet to compare 
notes after their series of experiments and working backwards to show 
that, since neither can jump between branches, all measurements must 
have been made in the same branch.


You can do the same thing in the forwards time direction by considering 
that the singlet is prepared in one world. The component particles move 
off in separate directions, but they can't jump worlds either, so when 
Bob gets his particle to measure, he is necessarily in the same world as 
that in which Alice makes her measurement -- the singlet state itself 
guarantees that. Then they make their measurements: each gets either up 
or down, so each splits into two branches. But the branch with, say, 
Alice_up is connected with the original branch in which Bob sits. He 
splits into two branches on measurement, but again, each branch is 
connected with the original Alice branches. There are now four branches: 
Alice_up-Bob_up, and so on for the other combinations. Each of these 
branches defines a single world in which there are a pair of 
measurements. And, because of the way in which these branches are always 
interconnected, the results of each experimenter, if repeated many 
times, will always have the correct quantum correlations. There are no 
other branches -- and no unconnected measurements that have, somehow, to 
be discarded -- they can never get uncorrelated spin measurements!



Bell’s inequality will not been violated, because that Bob and Alice 
will never meet again. Each of them will meet only their relevant 
counterparts when they will “meet again”.


and all what they both know is that they share some historical 
reality with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, 
but they are are ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many 
histories, with all the correlation between different spin “angle” 
(assuming a fixed base to describe them).
I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or 
Kochen-Specker theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous 
action at a distance. I have seen may attempt to prove this, but 
they always favour a branch in a way or another, forgetting the 
probabilities bear on different portioning of the multiverse in the 
big picture.


Any evaluation of a set of correlations between experimental results 
happens in one branch of the superposition. So much for "favouring a 
branch in a way or another." There is simply no other way to evaluate 
the correlations. There is no "big picture" that is going to change 
this conclusion.


Then you assume some collapse.


As usual, that is your fantasy (i.e., a meaningless bolt-hole by which 
to escape an inevitable mathematical conclusion). No collapse is assumed.


It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary 
relative local appearance of what seem to be an action at a 
distance. There are none, but to show this, we must take into 
account the fact that Alice and Bob find all correlated results in 
all directions.


Physics is covariant in any case. The non-locality is real -- it is 
not just an 'appearance'. Bell's theorem and the observed 
correlations prove this.


I don’t see this. The violation of Bell’s inequality is real, but 
without any collapse, all interactions are local, and spread locally 
fro the place where they have been done. That follows from the wave 
only, and that guaranties that Alice and Bob, when coming back, will 
see the correlation/violation, but Alice and Bob does that only with 
some relative counterpart of Bob and counterpart of Alice respectively.


You keep returning to this idea of a "common cause" explanation. And 
that, as we know, is ruled out by Bell's theorem. And all attempts to 
undermine Bell's theorem end in disaster -- Bell's theorem is called a 
theorem for good reason.


Like Maudlin says: “Or finally once can both avoid collapses and 
retain locality by embracing the Many-Minds ontology, exacting a high 
price from common sense”.


That refers directly to the "many-minds" interpretation of QM. And 
Maudlin, as well as everyone else, has long since moved on from this 
position. You should go to the library and read the third edition of 
Maudlin's book for his more 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> *Forget collapse.*
>
> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the
> "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in
> predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would
> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum
> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
> about a wave collapsing.
>
>
> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as
> part of the axiomatic structure of QM.
>
>
> In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a
> seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if
> we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.
>
>
>
>
> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it
> so mysterious.
>
>
> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:
>
>
> Ah! Exactly.
>
>
>
> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But
> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those
> questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with
> "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except the one
> observed.  Is there really any difference between saying those other
> predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying
> they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes,
> "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts
> probabilities.”
>
>
>
> OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea
> about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.
>
>
> That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed
> that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since
> there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted
> the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least
> virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a
> probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities
> are fundamental.
>
>
>
> Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better
> version of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the set of
> all consistent histories), and, at least in some book, just ask us to be
> irrational and to dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental,
> only to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that
> such a decision is irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike of
> find shocking the idea that all quantum possible outcome are realised. It
> is a bit like a christian who understand the evolution theory, but add that
> it makes just God having invented evolution instead of Adam.
>
>
>
> There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not observed and
> keeping that which is observed.
>

It is irrational if it results in a significantly more complex, ad hoc, or
nonsensical theory.

Jason


> That's what probability means: somethings happen and some don't.  The idea
> that all the possibilities happen is what has made MWI incoherent.
> Gleason's theorem supports the use of the Born rule to define a probability
> measure; but the problem is the metaphysical one of whether there is any
> meaning to "probability" when everything happens.
>
>
>
>
>
> Everett's MWI is appealing to the same intuition...that probabilities must
> refer to ensembles.
>
>
> Wich in my opinion is the only way to make sense of any notion of
> probabilities. You need a space or set of events too which the
> probabilities applies.
>
>
> But it must be an ensemble from which somethings happen and some don't.
>
>
>
>
> So the ensemble will be multiple-worlds.  But that didn't really work
> because Schroedinger's equation didn't predict multiple worlds with the
> right ratios, it just gave real number probabilities.  So people like Bohm
> and Bruno invented infinite ensembles to explain the probability numbers.
> Which is OK, but one should recognize that they are *not *just
> explicating Schroedinger's equation.
>
>
> There is no probabilities at all in the schroedinger equation. But then
> that equation describes also a vast set of relative state describing
> indexical probabilities.
>
>
> No, it doesn't describe "indexical probabilities".  That's why Born had to
> come up with an interpretative rule in order that there be a relation
> between the wf and observations.
>
> It is really similar to the WM-duplication. 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 2:57 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 9:36:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 8/1/2018 1:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM
UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at
6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018
at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July
30, 2018 at
7:50:47 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018
8:02 AM, Bruno
Marchal wrote:

*and
claims
the
system
being
measured
is
physically
in all
eigenstates
simultaneously
before
measurement.*



Nobody
claims
that this
is true.
But most
of us
would I
think
agree that
this is
what
happens if
you
describe
the couple
“observer
particle”
by QM, i.e
by the
quantum
wave. It
is a
consequence
of
elementary
quantum
mechanics
(unless of
course you
add the
unintelligible

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 9:36:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/1/2018 1:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 1:50 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:




On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM
UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at
1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018
at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM,
Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims
the system
being measured
is physically
in all
eigenstates
simultaneously
before
measurement.*



Nobody claims that
this is true. But
most of us would I
think agree that
this is what
happens if you
describe the
couple “observer
particle” by QM,
i.e by the quantum
wave. It is a
consequence of
elementary quantum
mechanics (unless
of course you add
the unintelligible
collapse of the
wave, which for me
just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in
eigenstates" is
confused.  An
eigenstate is relative
to some operator.  The
system can be in an
eigenstate of an
operator.  Ideal
measurements are
projection operators
that leave the system
in an eigenstate of
that operator.  But
ideal measurements are
rare in QM.  All the
measurements you're
discussing in Young's
slit examples are
destructive
measurements.  You can
consider, as a
mathematical
convenience, using a
  

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:41:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
> in the idea that a cat could be isolated.  Since the cat can't be isolated 
> 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark > wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch > wrote:


>>
the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach
magnet to and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is
sent much faster than light, probably instantaneously.
Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there is a 50%
chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes
through and you also pick a number at random, Y, and set your
magnet to it then the probability your electron will make it
through your filter is   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the
angle of your magnet is 30 degrees different from mine the
value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a 75%
probability your electron will make it through your
magnet, and if you happen to set it at the same angle I did
there is a 100% chance your electron will make it through and
if the angle difference is 90 degrees there is a 0% chance.
Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set my
magnet to much faster than light because until we check
results side by side (which can only be done at the speed of
light or less) both records of electron that passes through
and failed to look completely random, but its certainly weird.


>
The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of
spin vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon
polarization I agree with the statistics given above.

Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. 
If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was 
originally done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach 
magnet the particle will be deflected up (relative to the orientation 
angle chosen to set the magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 
electrons are quantum correlated and one is found to be deflected up 
then there is a 0% chance the other electron will also be deflected 
up. The really weird thing is that the direction I chose to be called 
"up" was completely arbitrary, I could have picked anything from 0 
degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother electron seems to 
instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" even though they are 
now 2 million light years away and the brothers were last in physical 
contact with each other a million years before I was born.




But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. 
The ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other 
bases. The singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the 
same or opposite spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither 
Alice nor Doc know in which direction. All they know is that there is 
a correlation. When Alice measure her spin, suddenly she knows in 
which “universe” she is, and she knows that if she met Bob again, he 
will indeed have the opposite result.  With one unique world, we 
cannot explain this without FTL influence, but with the "many-world” 
we are back at a Bertlmann socks case.


Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices 
of measurement angle. Assuming that Alice and Bob measure along the same 
direction is a special case.


Brent

The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in 
the wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s 
inequality is violated, and if they believe in only that branch, they 
have to believe in FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I 
don’t see the need to invoke any FTL.








/
>
However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns,
"Jason" with large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large
numbers of correlated photons", then there is no need for spooky
action at a distance.  Any particular measurement of any
particular correlated photon, by any particular Jason or John,
can be explained without resorting to instantaneous spooky
actions at a distance.
/The large numbers of correlated photons have each proto-measured
their counter part. Measuring one entangles you with that
particular photon, and tells you you are in the branch where that
correlated photon had a partner with an opposite polarization
angle. Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason who
measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with
your expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single
measurement result, all of them happen.


If I understand you correctly I pretty much agree with the above 
except I think its pointless to pretend things aren't spooky. The 
reason I like Many Worlds is that to my mind universes splitting is 
slightly less spooky than alternative 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 07:49, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is
physically in all eigenstates
simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most
of us would I think agree that this is what
happens if you describe the couple
“observer particle” by QM, i.e by the
quantum wave. It is a consequence of
elementary quantum mechanics (unless of
course you add the unintelligible collapse
of the wave, which for me just means that
QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused.  An eigenstate is relative to some
operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator. Ideal
measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that
operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
in QM.  All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit examples are
destructive measurements. You can consider,
as a mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to
define a set of eigenstates that will
provide a basis...but remember that it's
just mathematics, a certain choice of
basis.  The system is always in just one
state and the mathematics says there is some
operator for which that is the eigenstate.
But in general we don't know what that
operator is and we have no way of physically
implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write
that a system in a superposition of states is in
all component states simultaneously, I am
assuming the existence of an operator with
eigenstates that form a complete set and basis,
that the wf is written as a sum using this
basis, and that this representation corresponds
to the state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have
the eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a
quantum superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for
situations where we write a superposition as a
sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what
the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we
have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the
system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive
and dead simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But
to realize that physically would require that the
cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR
photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it
is in fact impossible to realize (which is why
Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory
it is assumed the cat is initially isolated and
decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, IMO,
the problem with the interpretation of superposition
   

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Aug 2018, at 02:11, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being
measured is physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But
most of us would I think agree that
this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by
QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a
consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add
the unintelligible collapse of the
wave, which for me just means that
QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused. An eigenstate is relative to
some operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal
measurements are projection operators
that leave the system in an eigenstate
of that operator.  But ideal
measurements are rare in QM.  All the
measurements you're discussing in
Young's slit examples are destructive
measurements. You can consider, as a
mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to
define a set of eigenstates that will
provide a basis...but remember that it's
just mathematics, a certain choice of
basis. The system is always in just one
state and the mathematics says there is
some operator for which that is the
eigenstate.  But in general we don't
know what that operator is and we have
no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I
write that a system in a superposition of
states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence
of an operator with eigenstates that form a
complete set and basis, that the wf is
written as a sum using this basis, and that
this representation corresponds to the state
of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have
the eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.

*I am also assuming that the interpretation
of a quantum superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all
eigenstates simultaneously, one of which
represents the system after measurement. I
do allow for situations where we write a
superposition as a sum of eigenstates even
if we don't know what the operator is, such
as the Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In
the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the
system simultaneously, implies the cat is
alive and dead simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But
to realize that physically would require that
the cat be perfectly isolated and 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2018, at 22:02, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote:


>>
Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because
they believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum
interpretation and are only interested in predicting how
far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
particular experiment. But for some of us that feels
unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding
about what's going on at the quantum level and wonder
why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
about a wave collapsing. 



/
>
That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the
Born rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM. /



 A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the 
Born rule is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles


??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first 
principles"??  What "first principles"? Have you gone platonic on us?


it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, 
for some strange reason the damn thing works.


Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent 
way to put a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just 
inuitited the rule (and actually got it wrong and corrected it in a 
footnote); but Gleason proved it in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a 
lot closer to being "derived from first principles" than does 
Schroedinger's equation or matrix mechanics.



Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and 
with Church thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to 
derive matrix mechanics from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, 
and certainly something like at least one universal machinery, like 
elementary arithmetic or the combinators.






The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; 
which nobody liked at the time because they could only think of 
probability as ignorance about ensembles and there were no 
ensembles...until Dewitt.


I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood 
Everett (after mocking him if I remember well).


I was referring to the fact that it was Dewitt who invented the 
mulitple-world interpretation.  Everett called it "the relative 
state" interpretation, and didn't consider multiple worlds.



Everett was asked by its publisher to not use the expression “parallel 
universes”, "many-worlds”, and said, according to some biographer, 
that he regretted this. Personally I prefer “relative sate”, but all 
this just allude to one and the same theory: QM-without-collapse.













Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave 
produces a probability which collapses into a certainty when a 
observation is made, but the mathematics can't say when that 
happens because it doesn't say what a observation is.


Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to 
apply it.


That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set 
of beliefs).


Interpreting arithmetical equations as sets of beliefs is already 
interpretation.


With mechanism, that is the same as your consciousness:



"With mechanism" all things follow since you just made up the term.

it is an interpretation of the set of arithmetical semi-computable 
relations implemented by your brain relatively to computations in 
arithmetic. Adding a universe or a god, other than arithmetic or 
combinators cannot work, as a universal machine cannot distinguish a 
physical and an arithmetical reality (except experimentally).


A notable exception.

You could say that intepretating schroedinger equation as a 
propagating wave is already an interpretation. In that sense, anything 
(except consciousness) is an interpretation.


Exactly.

Brent

That is what universal machine do: interpreting. I will click on some 
button, and my computer will interpret it as an invitation to send 
this mail.


Bruno





Brent

Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic 
embeds the mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is 
correct, there is not much choice left in the matter.


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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:


>
/Forget collapse./

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they 
believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and 
are only interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator 
needle on a meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some 
of us that feels unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper 
understanding about what's going on at the quantum level and 
wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything 
about a wave collapsing.




That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born 
rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.


In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a 
seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean 
forbidden if we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.






Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and 
why it so mysterious.




The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:


Ah! Exactly.



Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" 
preferred?  But decoherence theory has given answers (at least 
partially) to those questions.  Given those answers, one can just 
replace "collapse" with "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted 
possible results except the one observed.  Is there really any 
difference between saying those other predictions of the wf are in 
orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't 
happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes, "Quantum 
mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts 
probabilities.”



OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an 
idea about what are those probabilities about, and where they come 
from.


That was the source of resistance to Born's paper. Physicists assumed 
that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  
Since there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM 
they resisted the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce 
ensembles, or at least virtual ensembles, so that they could feel 
comfortable with having a probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just 
saying "Get over it!"; probabilities are fundamental.



Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better 
version of Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the 
set of all consistent histories), and, at least in some book, just ask 
us to be irrational and to dismiss the ensemble at make probability 
fundamental, only to make the “other worlds” disappear. In one book he 
lakes clear that such a decision is irrational, and that he makes it 
because he dislike of find shocking the idea that all quantum possible 
outcome are realised. It is a bit like a christian who understand the 
evolution theory, but add that it makes just God having invented 
evolution instead of Adam.



There's nothing irrational about discarding that which is not observed 
and keeping that which is observed.  That's what probability means: 
somethings happen and some don't.  The idea that all the possibilities 
happen is what has made MWI incoherent. Gleason's theorem supports the 
use of the Born rule to define a probability measure; but the problem is 
the metaphysical one of whether there is any meaning to "probability" 
when everything happens.







Everett's MWI is appealing to the same intuition...that probabilities 
must refer to ensembles.


Wich in my opinion is the only way to make sense of any notion of 
probabilities. You need a space or set of events too which the 
probabilities applies.


But it must be an ensemble from which somethings happen and some don't.





So the ensemble will be multiple-worlds.  But that didn't really work 
because Schroedinger's equation didn't predict multiple worlds with 
the right ratios, it just gave real number probabilities.  So people 
like Bohm and Bruno invented infinite ensembles to explain the 
probability numbers.  Which is OK, but one should recognize that they 
are /*not */just explicating Schroedinger's equation.


There is no probabilities at all in the schroedinger equation. But 
then that equation describes also a vast set of relative state 
describing indexical probabilities.


No, it doesn't describe "indexical probabilities".  That's why Born had 
to come up with an interpretative rule in order that there be a relation 
between the wf and observations.


It is really similar to the WM-duplication. From the 3p perspective, 
there is no probabilities at all, but the duplication (and mechanism) 
explains entirely why all first person concerned (having done the 
self-duplication) encounter probabilities. Somehow, Shannon entropy, 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 15:51, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
>  
> >>the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and the 
> >>angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than light, 
> >>probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there 
> >>is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number at 
> >>random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you 
> >>also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the 
> >>probability your electron will make it through your filter is   [COS 
> >>(x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees different 
> >>from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a 75% 
> >>probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you 
> >>happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your 
> >>electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees 
> >>there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set 
> >>my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by 
> >>side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of 
> >>electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its 
> >>certainly weird.  
> 
> >The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs. 
> >polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree 
> >with the statistics given above.
> Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a 
> unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done with 
> silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle will be 
> deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the magnet at) 
> or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and one is 
> found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other electron will 
> also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the direction I chose to 
> be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have picked anything from 0 
> degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother electron seems to instantly know 
> what angle I chose to call "up" even though they are now 2 million light 
> years away and the brothers were last in physical contact with each other a 
> million years before I was born.



But this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The ud - 
du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The singlet 
state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite 
spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in which 
direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice measure her 
spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she knows that if she 
met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result. With one unique world, 
we cannot explain this without FTL influence, but with the "many-world” we are 
back at a Bertlmann socks case. The same for the Bell’s inequality violation. 
They are not violated in the wave, but the wave explains that in each branch 
the Bell’s inequality is violated, and if they believe in only that branch, 
they have to believe in FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I 
don’t see the need to invoke any FTL. 





> 
> >However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with 
> >large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated 
> >photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any 
> >particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any 
> >particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to 
> >instantaneous spooky actions at a distance. The large numbers of correlated 
> >photons have each proto-measured their counter part.  Measuring one 
> >entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the 
> >branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite 
> >polarization angle.  Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason who 
> >measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your 
> >expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single measurement result, 
> >all of them happen.
> 
> If I understand you correctly I pretty much agree with the above except I 
> think its pointless to pretend things aren't spooky. The reason I like Many 
> Worlds is that to my mind universes splitting is slightly less spooky than 
> alternative explanations for bazaar facts we find with experiments, but only 
> slightly. That's why I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something even 
> weirder is.

With the many-worlds, the “splitting" propagates at the speed of the possible 
interaction between previously isolated system. The split is entirely local. It 
is not “spooky” in 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:


> >>
>> the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and
>> the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than light,
>> probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there
>> is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number at
>> random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
>> also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
>> probability your electron will make it through your filter is
>>   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
>> different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
>> 75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
>> happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
>> electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
>> there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
>> my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
>> side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
>> electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
>> certainly weird.
>>
>
> >
> T
> he above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs.
> polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree
> with the statistics given above.
>
Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a
unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done
with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle will
be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the magnet
at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and
one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other
electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the
direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have
picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother
electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" even
though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were last
in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.

*>However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with
> large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated
> photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any
> particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any
> particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to
> instantaneous spooky actions at a distance. *The large numbers of
> correlated photons have each proto-measured their counter part.  Measuring
> one entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the
> branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite
> polarization angle.  Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason
> who measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your
> expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single measurement result,
> all of them happen.
>

If I understand you correctly I pretty much agree with the above except I
think its pointless to pretend things aren't spooky. The reason I like Many
Worlds is that to my mind universes splitting is slightly less spooky than
alternative explanations for bazaar facts we find with experiments, but
only slightly. That's why I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something
even weirder is.

John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 13:37, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal  
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:11, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>> 
>>> the result for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, even at 
>>> space-like separations.
>> 
>> Absolutely.
>> 
>>> Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple an 'effect of one 
>>> measurement on the other', makes little difference.
>> 
>> I say that there is no space-separated instantaneous influence or effect. 
>> The non-locality, or Bell’s inequality violation just do no more reflect a 
>> physical action or influence, but a lack of knowledge about the initial 
>> spins, and indeed it is the same Alice and Bob distributed on all spins in 
>> all directions.
>> 
>> 
>>> The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal Shannon 
>>> sense of information, so there is no possibility of transmitting a message 
>>> by this "influence”.
>> 
>> That is true too. But there is no influence at all.
>> 
>>> In particular, there is no physical FTL transfer, and special relativity is 
>>> not violated.
>> 
>> Indeed, no action or transfer of anything are needed to explain the apparent 
>> non locality measurable in all branches. But with one world, there is still 
>> no information transfer, but there need to be an influence 
>> at a distance. Not so in the relative state theory (at least coming from 
>> Bell’s inequality violation).
> 
> I guess you will never accept that this is simply not true. The relative 
> state (Everett) theory is exactly the same as the collapse theory in 
> requiring instantaneous space-like influences.


Only when people said that there is a splitting of the whole universe when we 
do a measurement, but as I said, it is only consciousness or first person 
experience which differentiates, and it can affect the body and the environment 
only at the speed of light. Instantaneity has virtually no meaning to me, since 
special relativity. 

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 07:49, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker >>> > wrote:
 
 
 On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree 
>>> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer 
>>> particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of 
>>> elementary quantum mechanics (unless of 
>>>   course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>> 
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are 
>> rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit 
>> examples are destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a 
>> mathematical convenience, using a complete set of commuting operators to 
>> define a set of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember 
>> that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis.  The system is 
>> always in just one state and the mathematics says there is some operator 
>> for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general we don't know what 
>> that operator is and we have no way of physically implementing it.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a 
>> complete set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this 
>> basis, and that this representation corresponds to the state of the 
>> system before measurement. 
> 
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
> 
>> I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates 
>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I 
>> do allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of 
>> eigenstates even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + 
>> Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the 
>> hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, 
>> which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is 
>> alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
> 
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
> 
> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat 
> is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.
 
 Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
 least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the 
 cat is always in a classical state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
 never in superposition. 
 
> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short.
 
 Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
 nano-second.  
 
 
 
 What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly 
 isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the 
 the several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>>> 
>>> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or 
>>> Earthlings) 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:19, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> >> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
>>> >> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times 
>>> >> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later 
>>> >> you do the same thing.
>>> 
>>> > It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one 
>>> > location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location 
>>> > they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL 
>>> > is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then 
>>> > it would require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a 
>>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently 
>>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way 
>>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are 
>>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less. 
>>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin 
>>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace 
>>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>> 
>> 
>> If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet measure 
>> anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in the same 
>> branch?
> 
> Very easily. They had coffee together beforehand. They were in the same 
> branch then, and have not jumped between branches in the meantime.

I can be OK with this, by the fact that they share a singlet sate, but they are 
ignorant of which one in particular.


> 
>> How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of Bob 
>> and Alice,
> 
> No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse yourself by 
> continuing to claim such things which are not part of quantum mechanics.

 The singlet state just means that They will see correlated result when coming 
back together. Let me put it in this way: if Alice and Bob are space separated, 
I do not see how to give meaning to “to be in the same branche”, and they might 
individually get non correlated spin measurement? Bell’s inequality will not 
been violated, because that Bob and Alice will never meet again. Each of them 
will meet only their relevant counterparts when they will “meet again”. 





> 
> 
>> and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality with 
>> a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they are are 
>> ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, with all the 
>> correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a fixed base to 
>> describe them).
>> I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or Kochen-Specker 
>> theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous action at a distance. I 
>> have seen may attempt to prove this, but they always favour a branch in a 
>> way or another, forgetting the probabilities bear on different portioning of 
>> the multiverse in the big picture. 
> 
> Any evaluation of a set of correlations between experimental results happens 
> in one branch of the superposition. So much for "favouring a branch in a way 
> or another." There is simply no other way to evaluate the correlations. There 
> is no "big picture" that is going to change this conclusion.

Then you assume some collapse.



> 
> 
>> It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary relative 
>> local appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. There are none, 
>> but to show this, we must take into account the fact that Alice and Bob find 
>> all correlated results in all directions.
> 
> Physics is covariant in any case. The non-locality is real -- it is not just 
> an 'appearance'. Bell's theorem and the observed correlations prove this.

I don’t see this. The violation of Bell’s inequality is real, but without any 
collapse, all interactions are local, and spread locally fro the place where 
they have been done. That follows from the wave only, and that guaranties that 
Alice and Bob, when coming back, will see the correlation/violation, but Alice 
and Bob does that only with some relative counterpart of Bob and counterpart of 
Alice respectively.  Like Maudlin says: “Or finally once can both avoid 
collapses and retain locality by embracing the Many-Minds ontology, exacting a 
high price from common sense”.

Bruno


> 
> 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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal*  
On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


the result for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, 
even at space-like separations.


Absolutely.

Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple an 'effect of one 
measurement on the other', makes little difference.


I say that there is no space-separated instantaneous influence or 
effect. The non-locality, or Bell’s inequality violation just do no 
more reflect a physical action or influence, but a lack of knowledge 
about the initial spins, and indeed it is the same Alice and Bob 
distributed on all spins in all directions.



The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal 
Shannon sense of information, so there is no possibility of 
transmitting a message by this "influence”.


That is true too. But there is no influence at all.

In particular, there is no physical FTL transfer, and special 
relativity is not violated.


Indeed, no action or transfer of anything are needed to explain the 
apparent non locality measurable in all branches. But with one world, 
there is still no information transfer, but there need to be an 
influence at a distance. Not so in the relative state theory (at least 
coming from Bell’s inequality violation).


I guess you will never accept that this is simply not true. The relative 
state (Everett) theory is exactly the same as the collapse theory in 
requiring instantaneous space-like influences.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 06:11, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
 On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark >>> > wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra >>> > wrote:
 
 > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous. 
 > The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular 
 > interpretation used, it has no operational meaning.
 
 Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means 
 transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that 
 faster than light. But it will still let you   
 influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement 
 can influence things faster than light but you need more than that to 
 transmit information, you need a standard to measure that change against, 
 and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it can do is change 
 one apparently random state to 
   another apparently random state.  
 
 You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
 Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and 
 record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do 
 the same thing.
 
 It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, 
 then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were 
 created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is not not 
 needed under QM to explain EPR.
>>> 
>>> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an 
>>> explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled 
>>> out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work 
>>> either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend 
>>> with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden 
>>> variables.
>> 
>> 
>> Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable theory, or 
>> make them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or any 
>> singularisation of a reality through measurement/interaction, I don’t see 
>> how such result would entai action at a distance. If you have references I 
>> am interested.
> 
> As I have proved in detail, collapse has nothing to do with it. Bell's result 
> holds for many-worlds as it does for a single-world theory. The "Spooky 
> action at a distance" is simply what is observed —

Yes, in each worlds. But you need a unique world to say that a spooky action is 
the culprit. With many worlds, the violation of Bell’s inequality only result 
from all Alice-Bod couples having no idea of he value of their respective spin 
in each possible world.




> the result for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, even at 
> space-like separations.


Absolutely.




> Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple an 'effect of one measurement 
> on the other', makes little difference.

I say that there is no space-separated instantaneous influence or effect. The 
non-locality, or Bell’s inequality violation just do no more reflect a physical 
action or influence, but a lack of knowledge about the initial spins, and 
indeed it is the same Alice and Bob distributed on all spins in all directions.




> The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal Shannon 
> sense of information, so there is no possibility of transmitting a message by 
> this "influence”.

That is true too. But there is no influence at all.



> In particular, there is no physical FTL transfer, and special relativity is 
> not violated.

Indeed, no action or transfer of anything are needed to explain the apparent 
non locality measurable in all branches. But with one world, there is still no 
information transfer, but there need to be an influence at a distance. Not so 
in the relative state theory (at least coming from Bell’s inequality violation).

Bruno




> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
You received this message 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
   > Forget collapse.
 Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the 
 "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in 
 predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a 
 particular experiment. But   for some of us that feels 
 unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding about what's 
 going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is nothing in the 
 mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing. 
 
>>> 
>>> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as 
>>> part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  
>> 
>> In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a 
>> seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if 
>> we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it 
 so mysterious. 
 
>>> 
>>> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:
>> 
>> Ah! Exactly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But 
>>> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those 
>>> questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with 
>>> "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible results except the one 
>>> observed.  Is there really any difference between saying those other 
>>> predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying 
>>> they just didn't happen.  That seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes, 
>>> "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so it only predicts 
>>> probabilities.”
>> 
>> 
>> OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea 
>> about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.
> 
> That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed that 
> probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since there was 
> no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they resisted the idea.  
> Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, or at least virtual 
> ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with having a probabilistic 
> theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; probabilities are fundamental. 


Yes, but he said all this after defending Everett (or its own better version of 
Everett). Then, this introduces a notion of ensemble (the set of all consistent 
histories), and, at least in some book, just ask us to be irrational and to 
dismiss the ensemble at make probability fundamental, only to make the “other 
worlds” disappear. In one book he lakes clear that such a decision is 
irrational, and that he makes it because he dislike of find shocking the idea 
that all quantum possible outcome are realised. It is a bit like a christian 
who understand the evolution theory, but add that it makes just God having 
invented evolution instead of Adam. 



> Everett's MWI is appealing to the same intuition...that probabilities must 
> refer to ensembles. 

Wich in my opinion is the only way to make sense of any notion of 
probabilities. You need a space or set of events too which the probabilities 
applies.  



> So the ensemble will be multiple-worlds.  But that didn't really work because 
> Schroedinger's equation didn't predict multiple worlds with the right ratios, 
> it just gave real number probabilities.  So people like Bohm and Bruno 
> invented infinite ensembles to explain the probability numbers.  Which is OK, 
> but one should recognize that they are not just explicating Schroedinger's 
> equation.

There is no probabilities at all in the schroedinger equation. But then that 
equation describes also a vast set of relative state describing indexical 
probabilities. It is really similar to the WM-duplication. From the 3p 
perspective, there is no probabilities at all, but the duplication (and 
mechanism) explains entirely why all first person concerned (having done the 
self-duplication) encounter probabilities. Somehow, Shannon entropy, or 
Botzmann, use something similar. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> Now, the computationalists expected exactly that kind of probabilities, on 
>> the computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the “step 4”, i.e. the 
>> unawareness of the basic computation “time” (the number of steps in the 
>> universal dovetailing or the length of the proof of a sigma_1 sentence), 
>> 
>> It is all in head of the universal machine!
>> 
>> The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson Arithmetic, or 
>> the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is
physically in all eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of
us would I think agree that this is what
happens if you describe the couple “observer
particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It
is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the
unintelligible collapse of the wave, which
for me just means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused. An eigenstate is relative to some
operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate
of an operator.  Ideal measurements are
projection operators that leave the system in
an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal
measurements are rare in QM.  All the
measurements you're discussing in Young's slit
examples are destructive measurements. You can
consider, as a mathematical convenience, using
a complete set of commuting operators to
define a set of eigenstates that will provide
a basis...but remember that it's just
mathematics, a certain choice of basis.  The
system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for
which that is the eigenstate. But in general
we don't know what that operator is and we
have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write
that a system in a superposition of states is in
all component states simultaneously, I am assuming
the existence of an operator with eigenstates that
form a complete set and basis, that the wf is
written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the
system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a
quantum superposition is that before measurement,
the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously,
one of which represents the system after
measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even
if we don't know what the operator is, such as the
Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of
the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I
argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if
"occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies
the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to
realize that physically would require that the cat
be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR
photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is
in fact impossible to realize (which is why
Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it
is assumed the cat is initially isolated and decoheres
in a fraction of a nano second. So, IMO, the problem
with the interpretation of superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat
dying takes at least several seconds, very long compared
to decoherence times.  So the cat is always in a

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
> by
> QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
> are
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
> convenience,
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>

 *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
 assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
 set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
 this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
 measurement.  *


 In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
 complete basis...but OK.

 *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
 is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
 simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
 allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
 even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
 spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
 superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
 by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
 simultaneously. AG *


 Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
 physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
 radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
 impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

>>>
>>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>>> never in superposition.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>>> nano-second.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
>> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
>> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>>
>>
>> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or
>> Earthlings) observe the event?
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>  No, just that superposition is a relative, rather than objective notion.
>
>
> OK.  Welcome to QBism.
>

After reading the wiki article on QBism I still can't say I understand what
it is about, as it doesn't seem to offer any core positions.

I am an adherent of bayesianism, and believe it applies generally in all
domains (being an agent having to make decisions/bets), so what 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>
>>
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>> physically implementing it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
>> never in superposition. 
>>
>>
>>
>> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, 
>> don't you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if 
>> you say it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is 
>> this not a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>>
>>
>> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
>> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>>
>>
>> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
>> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
>> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
>> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>>
>>
>> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
>> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
>> in the idea that a cat could be 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch >wrote:


>>
You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and
you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I
flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and
tails and then just one hour later you do the same thing.


/
>
It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because
of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If
it worked as you said then it would require FTL.  But you can't
keep flipping the same coin./



I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a 
communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently 
random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the 
only way to tell that something funney is going on is when the two 
results are checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed 
of light or less. But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 
2 streams of 100 spin correlated electrons created midway between 
Andromeda and Earth and replace the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach 
magnets oriented the same way.



If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet 
measure anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in 
the same branch?


Very easily. They had coffee together beforehand. They were in the same 
branch then, and have not jumped between branches in the meantime.


How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of 
Bob and Alice,


No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse 
yourself by continuing to claim such things which are not part of 
quantum mechanics.



and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality 
with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they 
are are ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, 
with all the correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a 
fixed base to describe them).
I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or 
Kochen-Specker theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous 
action at a distance. I have seen may attempt to prove this, but they 
always favour a branch in a way or another, forgetting the 
probabilities bear on different portioning of the multiverse in the 
big picture.


Any evaluation of a set of correlations between experimental results 
happens in one branch of the superposition. So much for "favouring a 
branch in a way or another." There is simply no other way to evaluate 
the correlations. There is no "big picture" that is going to change this 
conclusion.



It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary 
relative local appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. 
There are none, but to show this, we must take into account the fact 
that Alice and Bob find all correlated results in all directions.


Physics is covariant in any case. The non-locality is real -- it is not 
just an 'appearance'. Bell's theorem and the observed correlations prove 
this.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>wrote:

/
>
A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent
on the particular interpretation used, it has no operational
meaning.
/

/
/
Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating
means transferring Shannon style information and entanglement
can't do that faster than light. But it will still let you
influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement can
influence things faster than light but you need more than that
to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that
change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that
standard; all it can do is change one apparently random state to
another apparently random state.

You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and you're
in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my
coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and tails and
then just one hour later you do the same thing.


It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one 
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the 
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of 
this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.


Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an 
explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is 
ruled out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds 
doesn't work either. I think that any "common cause" explanation 
would have to contend with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also 
rules out any such hidden variables.



Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable 
theory, or make them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or 
any singularisation of a reality through measurement/interaction, I 
don’t see how such result would entai action at a distance. If you 
have references I am interested.


As I have proved in detail, collapse has nothing to do with it. Bell's 
result holds for many-worlds as it does for a single-world theory. The 
"Spooky action at a distance" is simply what is observed -- the result 
for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, even at 
space-like separations. Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple 
an 'effect of one measurement on the other', makes little difference. 
The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal Shannon 
sense of information, so there is no possibility of transmitting a 
message by this "influence". In particular, there is no physical FTL 
transfer, and special relativity is not violated.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell
did, which is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.


No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual
definiteness. See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock",
Am. J. Phys. 78, 121 (2010).


There is another reply by Robert B. Griffiths "EPR, Bell, and quantum 
locality" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf 
 ) which says that Mauldin was 
wrong in his reply to Baylock. Who to believe?


Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh! the irony of it!
When I first read through Griffiths supposed rebuttal of Maudlin , I 
almost fell off my chair laughing. He has made exactly the same mistake 
that von Neumann made in his supposed proof of the impossibility of 
hidden variables. Bell, in his 1966 RMP paper "On the problem of hidden 
variables in quantum mechanics" gives the following account of von 
Neumann's proof. "His essential assumption is: Any real linear 
combination of any two Hermitian operators represents an observable, and 
the same linear combination of expectation values is the expectation 
value of the combination. This is true for quantum mechanical states; it 
is required by von Neumann of the hypothetical dispersion free states 
also." Bell points out that this requirement is quite unreasonable, 
because "the latter is a quite peculiar property of quantum mechanical 
states, not to be expected /a priori/. There is no reason to demand it 
individually of the hypothetical dispersion free states, whose function 
it is to reproduce the /measurable/ peculiarities of quantum mechanics 
/when averaged over/."


Griffiths does exactly the same thing in his analysis of Maudlin's 
argument in Section VI of the above paper. Maudlin provisionally assumes 
locality, then looks to see what properties the singlet state must have 
to satisfy the quantum predictions. In other words, he looks for a local 
hidden variable account -- what is the "common cause" that gives rise to 
the observed correlations? So his point M5 is: "Therefore the complete 
physical description of particle b must determine how it is disposed to 
yield a particular outcome for each possible spin measurement, because 
M1 [opposite spin projections for parallel magnets for particles a and 
b] holds for any spin component."


This is exactly what one would require the hypothetical hidden variable 
account to do -- the hidden variables, in the terminology used above by 
Bell, are the supposed dispersion-free states. Griffiths criticizes this 
in the following way: "However, at M5 we arrive at a significant 
divergence from the principle of Hilbert space quantum mechanics that 
states that any physical description of a particle at a single time must 
correspond to some subspace of its Hilbert space. Neither |psi_0> nor 
any subspace of H_b for particle b can be interpreted as indicating how 
particle b is disposed to yield a /particular/ outcome for /each/ 
possible spin measurement." Exactly, this is what QM says, but that 
cannot be demanded of the supposed dispersion-free hidden variable 
states , because they are not part of the standard quantum framework.


This is the von Neumann mistake all over again, and Bell's rejoinder is 
apposite also to Griffith's so-called "rebuttal" of Maudlin. Hidden 
variable states do not obey the same rules as quantum states, and it is 
unreasonable to demand that they do.


One just has to realize that Maudlin is presenting an analysis of what 
would actually be required of a local account of the EPR correlations. 
He is aware that any such analysis has to be in terms of local hidden 
variables. He then points out that Bell's theorem tells us that no such 
local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predicted quantum 
correlations -- that are experimentally confirmed.


Griffiths goes on the claim that Bell's result can be derived by 
assuming counterfactual definiteness, but he is not as clear that such 
an assumption is actually necessary. And of course, as Maudlin points 
out, Bell makes no such assumption. There is no need to make 
counterfactual claims about measurements that were not made in order to 
derive Bell's result. In fact, derivations that do refer to such 
counterfactuals are all highly contrived and artificial -- 
counterfactual arguments are not necessary, so no assumptions need be 
made about conterfactual definiteness or the lack of it.


Griffiths claims to have disposed of Maudlin's argument against Baylock. 
His own account of EPR-type correlations starts from the strong 
assumption that quantum mechanics is necessarily completely local. If 
his section V on EPR correlations, he blathers on at considerable length 
without actually saying very much, and then 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM
UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno
Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system
being measured is
physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is
true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what
happens if you describe the
couple “observer particle” by
QM, i.e by the quantum wave.
It is a consequence of
elementary quantum mechanics
(unless of course you add the
unintelligible collapse of the
wave, which for me just means
that QM is false).


This talk of "being in
eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some
operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator. Ideal
measurements are projection
operators that leave the system in
an eigenstate of that operator. 
But ideal measurements are rare in
QM. All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit
examples are destructive
measurements.  You can consider,
as a mathematical convenience,
using a complete set of commuting
operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a
basis...but remember that it's
just mathematics, a certain choice
of basis.  The system is always in
just one state and the mathematics
says there is some operator for
which that is the eigenstate.  But
in general we don't know what that
operator is and we have no way of
physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when
I write that a system in a
superposition of states is in all
component states simultaneously, I am
assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete
set and basis, that the wf is written
as a sum using this basis, and that
this representation corresponds to the
state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to
have the eigenstates form a complete
basis...but OK.

*I am also assuming that the
interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all
   

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 1:22:44 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
> in the idea that a cat could be isolated.  Since the cat can't be isolated 
> then |alive> and |dead> can only appear in a mixture, not in a coherent 
> superposition.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> *But when you 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
> in the idea that a cat could be isolated.  Since the cat can't be isolated 
> then |alive> and |dead> can only appear in a mixture, not in a coherent 
> superposition.
>
> Brent
>


*But when you include the cat in a superposition wf using decoherence 
theory, you have a two state 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being
measured is physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously before
measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But
most of us would I think agree that
this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM,
i.e by the quantum wave. It is a
consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add
the unintelligible collapse of the
wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused.  An eigenstate is relative to
some operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator. Ideal
measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that
operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
in QM. All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit examples are
destructive measurements.  You can
consider, as a mathematical convenience,
using a complete set of commuting
operators to define a set of eigenstates
that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain
choice of basis.  The system is always in
just one state and the mathematics says
there is some operator for which that is
the eigenstate.  But in general we don't
know what that operator is and we have no
way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write
that a system in a superposition of states is
in all component states simultaneously, I am
assuming the existence of an operator with
eigenstates that form a complete set and
basis, that the wf is written as a sum using
this basis, and that this representation
corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.

*I am also assuming that the interpretation of
a quantum superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for
situations where we write a superposition as a
sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what
the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of
a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using
the hypothesis of superposition I argue
against, we have two eigenstates, which if
"occupied" by the system simultaneously,
implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that. But to
realize that physically would require that the cat
be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR
photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it
is in fact impossible to realize (which is why
 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is
physically in all eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us
would I think agree that this is what happens if
you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM,
i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of
elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you
add the unintelligible collapse of the wave, which
for me just means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused. 
An eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The
system can be in an eigenstate of an operator. 
Ideal measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that
operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM. 
All the measurements you're discussing in Young's
slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using
a complete set of commuting operators to define a
set of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but
remember that it's just mathematics, a certain
choice of basis.  The system is always in just one
state and the mathematics says there is some
operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in
general we don't know what that operator is and we
have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a
system in a superposition of states is in all component
states simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of
an operator with eigenstates that form a complete set
and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this
basis, and that this representation corresponds to the
state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a
quantum superposition is that before measurement, the
system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, one of
which represents the system after measurement. I do
allow for situations where we write a superposition as
a sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what the
operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin
particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis
of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that. But to
realize that physically would require that the cat be
perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f.
C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible
to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is
assumed the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a
fraction of a nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the
interpretation of superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to
decoherence times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/
state between |alive> and |dead>. These are never in
superposition.


*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is
exceedingly short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a
cat in a nano-second.



What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour? Would it not be
perfectly isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a
superposition until the the several hours it takes for light to
get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?


?? 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.


*But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based on 
decoherence theory and the wf you write, taking into account the apparatus, 
observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be initially isolated 
for this to make sense? AG*

>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
> nano-second.  
>
>
> *And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
> out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
> that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
>
>
> *Other than slit 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
 simultaneously before measurement.*



 Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
 that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by
 QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
 mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
 wave, which for me just means that QM is false).


 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
 in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are
 destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience,
 using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
 that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
 certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
 mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
 But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
 physically implementing it.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
>>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
>>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
>>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
>>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
>>> measurement.  *
>>>
>>>
>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
>>> complete basis...but OK.
>>>
>>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
>>> is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
>>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
>>> allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
>>> even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
>>> spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
>>> superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
>>> by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
>>> simultaneously. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
>>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
>>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>> never in superposition.
>>
>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>
>>
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>> nano-second.
>>
>>
>
> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>
>
> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or
> Earthlings) observe the event?
>
>
> Brent
>


 No, just that superposition is a relative, rather than objective notion.

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.
>

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote:


>>
Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they
believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum
interpretation and are only interested in predicting how far
to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
particular experiment. But for some of us that feels
unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding
about what's going on at the quantum level and wonder
why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
about a wave collapsing. 



/
>
That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born
rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM. /



 A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born 
rule is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles


??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"??  
What "first principles"?  Have you gone platonic on us?


it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, 
for some strange reason the damn thing works.


Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way 
to put a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited 
the rule (and actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); 
but Gleason proved it in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a lot closer 
to being "derived from first principles" than does Schroedinger's 
equation or matrix mechanics.



Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and 
with Church thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to 
derive matrix mechanics from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, 
and certainly something like at least one universal machinery, like 
elementary arithmetic or the combinators.






The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which 
nobody liked at the time because they could only think of probability 
as ignorance about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt.


I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood 
Everett (after mocking him if I remember well).


I was referring to the fact that it was Dewitt who invented the 
mulitple-world interpretation.  Everett called it "the relative state" 
interpretation, and didn't consider multiple worlds.








Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces 
a probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is 
made, but the mathematics can't say when that happens because it 
doesn't say what a observation is.


Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to 
apply it.


That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of 
beliefs).


Interpreting arithmetical equations as sets of beliefs is already 
interpretation.


Brent

Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic 
embeds the mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is correct, 
there is not much choice left in the matter.


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.


--
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in
all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the
quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible
collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The system can
be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal measurements
are projection operators that leave the system in an
eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are
rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in
Young's slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis. 
The system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for which that
is the eigenstate.  But in general we don't know what
that operator is and we have no way of physically
implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system
in a superposition of states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete set and basis, that
the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before measurement, the system is in
all eigenstates simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we
don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state
of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize
that physically would require that the cat be perfectly
isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball
experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to realize (which
is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed
the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a
nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of
superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence
times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/ state between
|alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition.


*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly
short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat
in a nano-second.



What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be 
perfectly isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a 
superposition until the the several hours it takes for light to get to 
Earth from Pluto reaches us?


?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or 
Earthlings) observe the event?


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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:


>
/Forget collapse./

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe 
in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on 
a meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that 
feels unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding 
about what's going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is 
nothing in the mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing.




That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule 
as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.


In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a 
seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean 
forbidden if we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.






Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and 
why it so mysterious.




The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:


Ah! Exactly.



Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  
But decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to 
those questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace 
"collapse" with "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible 
results except the one observed.  Is there really any difference 
between saying those other predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, 
inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't happen.  That seems 
to be Omnes approach.  He writes, "Quantum mechanics is a 
probabilistic theory, so it only predicts probabilities.”



OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an 
idea about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.


That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed 
that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since 
there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they 
resisted the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, 
or at least virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with 
having a probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; 
probabilities are fundamental.  Everett's MWI is appealing to the same 
intuition...that probabilities must refer to ensembles.  So the ensemble 
will be multiple-worlds.  But that didn't really work because 
Schroedinger's equation didn't predict multiple worlds with the right 
ratios, it just gave real number probabilities.  So people like Bohm and 
Bruno invented infinite ensembles to explain the probability numbers.  
Which is OK, but one should recognize that they are /*not */just 
explicating Schroedinger's equation.


Brent

Now, the computationalists expected exactly that kind of 
probabilities, on the computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the 
“step 4”, i.e. the unawareness of the basic computation “time” (the 
number of steps in the universal dovetailing or the length of the 
proof of a sigma_1 sentence),


It is all in head of the universal machine!

The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson 
Arithmetic, or the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian 
combinators.


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.


--
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in
all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the
quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible
collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The system can
be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal measurements
are projection operators that leave the system in an
eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are
rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in
Young's slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis. 
The system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for which that
is the eigenstate. But in general we don't know what
that operator is and we have no way of physically
implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system
in a superposition of states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete set and basis, that
the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before measurement, the system is in
all eigenstates simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we
don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state
of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize
that physically would require that the cat be perfectly
isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball
experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to realize (which
is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed
the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a
nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of
superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence
times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/ state between
|alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition.

*

When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, 
don't you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be 
if you say it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). 
Why is this not a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate 
the cat? AG *


That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.





*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly
short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat
in a nano-second.


*And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly
pointed out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of
superposition; namely, that the system represented by a
superposition, is in all components states simultaneously. AG
*


It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:43 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:47:13 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
> by
> QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
> are
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
> convenience,
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>

 *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
 assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
 set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
 this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
 measurement.  *


 In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
 complete basis...but OK.

 *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
 is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
 simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
 allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
 even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
 spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
 superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
 by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
 simultaneously. AG *


 Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
 physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
 radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
 impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

>>>
>>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>>> never in superposition.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>>> nano-second.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
>> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
>> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> *In principle, superposition represents a system prior to measurement.
> Nothing to do with when light reaches the Earth; depends on when the
> measurement occurs. AG*
>
>
>
Superposition is relative.  As the case of Wigner's friend shows.  For
someone on Pluto, the cat in the box may have already died or remained
alive, relatively to him. But the superposition can remain for us on Earth,
for several hours, because that system remains perfectly isolated from us.
(This is what the idealization of the steel box was meant to achieve in the
thought experiment--perfect environmental isolation).  Brent 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
> >>
>>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
>>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
>>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
>>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
>>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
>>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
>>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>>>
>>
>> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
>> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.*
>>
>
> Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to
> and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than
> light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to
> there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
> at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
> also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
> probability your electron will make it through your filter is
>   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
> different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
> 75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
> happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
> electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
> there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
> my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
> side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
> electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
> certainly weird.
>

The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs.
polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree
with the statistics given above.

However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with
large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated
photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any
particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any
particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to
instantaneous spooky actions at a distance.  The large numbers of
correlated photons have each proto-measured their counter part.  Measuring
one entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the
branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite
polarization angle.  Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason
who measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your
expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single measurement result,
all of them happen.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:47:13 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.*



 Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree 
 that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
 by 
 QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
 mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
 wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 


 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
 in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
 are 
 destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
 convenience, 
 using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
 that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
 certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
 mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
 But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
 physically implementing it.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>>> measurement.  *
>>>
>>>
>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>>> complete basis...but OK.
>>>
>>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition 
>>> is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates 
>>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do 
>>> allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates 
>>> even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a 
>>> spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of 
>>> superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" 
>>> by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
>> never in superposition. 
>>
>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>
>>
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
>> nano-second.  
>>
>>
>
> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly 
> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the 
> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>
> Jason
>

*In principle, superposition represents a system prior to measurement. 
Nothing to do with when light reaches the Earth; depends on when the 
measurement occurs. 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 06:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>> 
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is relative 
>> to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal 
>> measurements are projection operators that leave the system in an eigenstate 
>> of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM.  All the 
>> measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are destructive 
>> measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a 
>> complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates that will 
>> provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a certain choice 
>> of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the mathematics says 
>> there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general we 
>> don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically 
>> implementing it.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement. 
> 
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
> 
>> I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we 
>> don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
> 
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
> 
> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat is 
> initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second.

But decoherence is only entanglement with the environment. The cat decoder 
relatively to the observer, but that is exactly what the SWE describes. The 
superposed state of the cat just get very quickly contagious to the environment 
and then the observer, which reports decoherence or collapse according to its 
philosophy. Decoherence is the best explanation why we don’t feel the 
split/differentiation.



> So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.

Certainly, if you postulate a unique well defined physical reality. 



> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. And for 
> this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed out the 
> fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, that the 
> system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG 


Without that simultaneity there would be no interference, which we observe in 
all case. Give me a two state system u and d, u will be equal to u’ + d”, and d 
will be equal to u’ - d’. A qubit is only a bit that we can rotate in the 
hilbert space. A qu-register is only a register of qubit, and we can put it in 
the state

(u’+d')(u’+d')(u’+d') ... (u’+d’), making the full register of length n 
containing the superposition of all sequence of bit, when seen or considered in 
the u and d base. We can test if the result of 2^n computations, get the same 
results or not, for example, by NOT observing each bit in the u/d base, but 
instead making such result interfering in another base, and then measuring 
them. 

If someone can explain me Shor quantum algorithm for factoring number, even a 
small number as 15 (this has been done experimentally) without a physical 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> >>You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
> >>Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and 
> >>record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do 
> >>the same thing.
> 
> >It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, 
> >then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were 
> >created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is not not 
> >needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it would 
> >require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.
> 
> 
> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a 
> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently random 
> sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way to tell 
> that something funney is going on is when the two results are checked sinde 
> by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less. But if you want 
> exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin correlated 
> electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace the coin 
> flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.


If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet measure 
anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in the same branch? 
How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of Bob and 
Alice, and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality 
with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they are are 
ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, with all the 
correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a fixed base to describe 
them).
I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or Kochen-Specker 
theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous action at a distance. I 
have seen may attempt to prove this, but they always favour a branch in a way 
or another, forgetting the probabilities bear on different portioning of the 
multiverse in the big picture. 

It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary relative local 
appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. There are none, but to 
show this, we must take into account the fact that Alice and Bob find all 
correlated results in all directions.

Bruno



> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>
>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>>
>
> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.*
>

Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to
and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than
light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to
there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
probability your electron will make it through your filter is
  [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
certainly weird.

John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark > > wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra > > wrote:
>> 
>> > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous. 
>> > The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular 
>> > interpretation used, it has no operational meaning.
>> 
>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means 
>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that faster 
>> than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than light. 
>> Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you need 
>> more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that 
>> change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it 
>> can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently random 
>> state.  
>> 
>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and 
>> record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do 
>> the same thing.
>> 
>> It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, 
>> then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the 
>> location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this 
>> that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.
> 
> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an explanation 
> would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled out. Claiming 
> that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work either. I think 
> that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend with the 
> Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden variables.


Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable theory, or make 
them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or any singularisation of a 
reality through measurement/interaction, I don’t see how such result would 
entai action at a distance. If you have references I am interested. 

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> >> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in 
>> >> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
>> >> interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a 
>> >> meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that feels 
>> >> unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding about what's 
>> >> going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is nothing in the 
>> >> mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing. 
>> 
>> > That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as 
>> > part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  
>> 
>> 
>>  A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule is 
>> neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles
> 
> ??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"??  What 
> "first principles"?  Have you gone platonic on us?
> 
>> it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, for some 
>> strange reason the damn thing works.
> 
> Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to put 
> a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited the rule (and 
> actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason proved it 
> in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived from first 
> principles" than does Schroedinger's equation or matrix mechanics. 


Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and with Church 
thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to derive matrix mechanics 
from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, and certainly something like at 
least one universal machinery, like elementary arithmetic or the combinators.



> 
> The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which nobody 
> liked at the time because they could only think of probability as ignorance 
> about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt.

I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood Everett 
(after mocking him if I remember well).



> 
>> Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces a 
>> probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is made, but 
>> the mathematics can't say when that happens because it doesn't say what a 
>> observation is.
> 
> Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply it.  

That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of beliefs). 
Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic embeds the 
mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is correct, there is not much 
choice left in the matter.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
>>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM,
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>>>
>>>
>>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
>>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
>>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
>>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
>>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are
>>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience,
>>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
>>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
>>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
>>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
>>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
>>> physically implementing it.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously,
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
> never in superposition.
>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
> nano-second.
>
>

What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch 
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 * > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
 ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the
 particular interpretation used, it has no operational meaning. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means
>>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that
>>> faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than
>>> light. Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you
>>> need more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure
>>> that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all
>>> it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently
>>> random state.
>>>
>>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>>> do the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
>> location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location
>> they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is
>> not not needed under QM to explain EPR.
>>
>>
>> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an
>> explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled
>> out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work
>> either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend
>> with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden
>> variables.
>>
>
> Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell did, which
> is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.
>
>
> No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual definiteness.
> See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock", Am. J. Phys. 78, 121
> (2010).
>

There is another reply by Robert B. Griffiths "EPR, Bell, and quantum
locality" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf ) which says that Mauldin
was wrong in his reply to Baylock. Who to believe?

"An important lesson to be drawn from all of this is the need for a clear
presentation of consistent principles of quantum reasoning in textbooks and
courses. When teaching courses on quantum information I always stress the
fact that there are no nonlocal influences in quantum theory, and point out
that this principle is useful to keep in mind when analyzing quantum
circuits. Unfortunately, physics students trained in traditional quantum
courses have difficulty replacing, or at least augmenting, the
calculational rules they learned by rote with a consistent probabilistic
analysis of what is going on. They may already have learned that the
superluminal influences reflected in violations of Bell’s inequality cannot
be used to transmit information. But they also need to hear a simple
explanation for why this is so: such influences do not exist."



> Neither, of course, do Kochen and Specker. Their proof is entirely logical
> and depends on the properties of non-commuting operators. Bell proved
> something similar in his 1966 paper on the problem of hidden variables.
>
> Deflecting Bell's theorem does not actually help in giving a local account
> of EPR-type correlations. Bell inequalities can be proved without ever
> referring to quantum mechanics -- they depend only on the assumption of
> locality. Experiment shows that these inequalities are violated.
>

Bell's reasoning also makes use of implicit assumptions about definite
results for unmeasured things. This is not valid in QM.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>
>> 
>> Einstein didn't say nothing can move faster than light, he only said matter 
>> and energy and information can't. Thanks to recent experiments with Bell's 
>> Inequality we already have rock solid evidence that quantum influences (but 
>> not information) can move much faster than light and are consistent with 
>> being instantaneous .
>> 
>> John K Clark
> 
> I am glad that someone else on this list actually understand the implications 
> of Bell's theorem. In fact, it is not even Bell's theorem that is important 
> here -- it is the experimental confirmation of the existence of correlations 
> between space-like separated events that shows that instantaneous 
> influence-at-a-distance exists.

You contradict one of your preview post. I take the violation of Bell’s 
inequality as an evidence that we belong ourself to superposition. That follows 
from the axiom: no instantaneous *physical* actions at a distance. Without 
collapse, all interactions are local and propagate at reasonable speed.




> Bell ruled out any local hidden variable explanation,


Yes, but he assumes a unique physical reality, as he acknowledge in his critics 
of Everett, or in his Bohm-like interpretation of Everett, which is indeed 
non-local in the strong sense (*physical* instantaneity). 



> but we could have non-local hidden variables (Bohm). These, if material, 
> would be FTL, but one does not need to go down this path, and there is no 
> evidence for it.


We don’t need to on that path indeed. The *appearance* of the action at a 
distance is given in a local and deterministic way by the evolution of the 
universal wave (or just the wave great enough to contains the observers and 
some part of their light cones).

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 01:33, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:33 PM,  > wrote:
> 
> > the wf has infinite extent (as does the probability density). This would 
> > imply INSTANTANEOUS propagation when the wf is created -- much worse than 
> > FTL!
> 
> Einstein didn't say nothing can move faster than light, he only said matter 
> and energy and information can't. Thanks to recent experiments with Bell's 
> Inequality we already have rock solid evidence that quantum influences (but 
> not information) can move much faster than light and are consistent with 
> being instantaneous.


That is the point where we disagree. With the many worlds, there is no more 
instantaneous influences at a distance.  Exactly like the SWE, and some 
hypothesis that the observer is some machine using some orthogonal vectors to 
get stable memories (a form of mechanism), explains the appearance of 
indeterminacy is a deterministic manner, it explains, up to now, the appearance 
of non-locality, without any spooky influence at a distance. That was the point 
of many discussion with Bruce, but he seems to agree that there is no FTL, 
still less instantaneous physical influence. That’s why in Quantum Cosmology, 
there is no collapse conceivable. Only the collapse make the instantaneousness 
physically real. And without collapse, the theory (the wave) predicts that in 
most branches, the Bell inequality will be violated, but nowhere you will see 
anything “physical” , still less “informational”, influencing instantaneously 
anything.
God does not play dice, and there is no spooky action at a distance, if QM is 
correct. (QM without collapse to be sure).

Bruno





> 
> John K Clark
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>   > Forget collapse.
>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the 
>> "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in 
>> predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a 
>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would 
>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum 
>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything 
>> about a wave collapsing. 
>> 
> 
> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as part 
> of the axiomatic structure of QM.  

In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a seemingly 
forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if we apply the 
wave to the couple observer-particle.



> 
>> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it so 
>> mysterious. 
>> 
> 
> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:

Ah! Exactly.



> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But 
> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those questions. 
>  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with "discard", i.e. 
> discard all the predicted possible results except the one observed.  Is there 
> really any difference between saying those other predictions of the wf are in 
> orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't happen.  That 
> seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic 
> theory, so it only predicts probabilities.”


OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea about 
what are those probabilities about, and where they come from. Now, the 
computationalists expected exactly that kind of probabilities, on the 
computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the “step 4”, i.e. the unawareness of 
the basic computation “time” (the number of steps in the universal dovetailing 
or the length of the proof of a sigma_1 sentence), 

It is all in head of the universal machine!

The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson Arithmetic, or 
the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian combinators.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>>
>>>
>>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>>> physically implementing it.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>


*When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *

>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
> nano-second.  
>
>
> *And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
> out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
> that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
>

*Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG *

> Any old plane polarized photon can be represented as being in a 
> superposition of left and right circular polarization.  It is *not* the 
> case that a system is in all basis states at once unless you count being in 
> state *|x>*  with 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation? (+ combinator 1, copy)

2018-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 30 Jul 2018, at 21:54, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> I always look forward to your tutorials in logic...even if I don't mistake 
> them for reality. :-)

Well, thanks. Did you get my post “Combinators 1 (introduction) ?
(I put it below in case you missed it). Well, it is already a slight 
amelioration. Tell me if you understand. Soon I will soon solve some exercice 
so that people can get some training. The price of the conceptual simplicity of 
the combinators is that the notation can be a bit tricky.

> Brent
> 
> On 7/30/2018 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and 
>> Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike 
>> Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh in 
>> my head because I have just finished a thorough course on this. Combinators 
>> are also interesting to explain what is a computation and for 
>> differentiating different sorts of computation, including already sort of 
>> “physical computation”. Yet it would be treachery to use this directly. To 
>> distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract 
>> them from Löb’s formula, and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a 
>> summary here.
>> 
>> Bruno

=== combinators 1 (introduction) 


Hi Jason, people,


I will send my post on the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness later. It is 
too long.

So, let us proceed with the combinators.

Two seconds of historical motivation. During the crisis in set theory, Moses 
Schoenfinkel publishes, in 1924, an attempt to found mathematics on only 
functions. But he did not consider the functions as defined by their behaviour 
(or input-output) but more as rules to follow.

He considered also only functions of one variable, and wrote (f x) instead of 
the usual f(x).

The idea is that a binary function like (x + y) when given the input 4, say, 
and other inputs, will just remains patient, instead of insulting the user, and 
so to compute 4+5 you just give 5 (+ 4), that is you compute
((+ 4) 5). (+ 4) will be an object computing the function 4 + x. 


The composition of f and g on x is thus written  (f (g x)), and a combinator 
should be some function B able on f, g and x to give (f (g x)).

Bfgx = f(gx), for example. 

When I said that Shoenfinkel considered only functions, I meant it literally, 
and he accepts that a function applies to any other functions, so (f f) is 
permitted. Here (f f) is f applied to itself.

A first question was about the existence of a finite set of combinators capable 
of giving all possible combinators, noting that a combinators combine. 
Shoenfinkel will find that it is the case, and provide the S and K combinators, 
for this. I will prove this later.

A second question will be, can the SK-combinators compute all partial 
computable functions from N to N, and thus all total computable functions?  The 
answer is yes. That has been proved by Curry, I think.

OK? (Infinitely more could be said here, but let us give the mathematical 
definition of the SK-combinators:

K is a combinator. 
S is a combinator.
If x and y are combinator, then (x y) is a combinator.

That is, is combinator is S, or K or a combination of S and K.

So, the syntaxe is very easy, although there will be some problem with the 
parentheses which will justified a convention/simplifcation.

Example of combinators.

Well, K and S, and their combinations, (K K), (K S), (S K), (S S), and the (K ( 
K K)) and ((K K) K), and (K (K S)) and …… (((S (K S)) K) etc.

I directly introduce an abbreviation to avoid too many parentheses. As all 
combinator is a function with one argument, I suppress *all* parentheses 
starting from the left:
The enumeration above is then:  K, S, KK, KS, SK, K(KK), KKK, K(SK) and … 
S(KS)K ...

So aaa(bbb) will be an abbreviation for (  ((a a) a) ((b b) b) ). It means a 
applied on a, the result is applied on a, and that results is applied on  .. 
well the same with b (a and b being some combinators).



OK?

Of course, they obeys some axioms, without which it would be hard to believe 
they could be
1) combinatorial complete (theorem 1)
2) Turing complete (theorem 2)

What are the axioms?

I write them with the abbreviation (and without, a last time!)

Axiom 1 Kxy = x
Axiom 2 Sxyz = xz(yz)

That is all. With the parentheses:

Axiom 1 ((K x) y) = x
Axiom 1 (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))

Exemple: (K K) gives … well, it gives (K K), because K needs two arguments to 
do something. K, Smullyan’s Kestrel, can be seen as a projection on the first 
coordinate, but with that delayed answer when it has not enough argument, like 
the combinators do.

But ((K K) (K K)) = KK(KK) = K, as KK(KK) is a redex: it match the left 
hand-side of the axiom 1, with x = K and y = KK.

A natural first exercise consists in finding an identity combinator. That is a 
combinator I such that Ix = x.

Well, only Kxy can give x, and Kxy 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what happens if you describe the
couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave.
It is a consequence of elementary quantum mechanics (unless
of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the wave,
which for me just means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The system can be
in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal measurements are
projection operators that leave the system in an eigenstate
of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM. 
All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit
examples are destructive measurements.  You can consider, as
a mathematical convenience, using a complete set of commuting
operators to define a set of eigenstates that will provide a
basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a certain
choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and
the mathematics says there is some operator for which that is
the eigenstate.  But in general we don't know what that
operator is and we have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
superposition of states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of an operator with
eigenstates that form a complete set and basis, that the wf is
written as a sum using this basis, and that this representation
corresponds to the state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates
form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before measurement, the system is in all
eigenstates simultaneously, one of which represents the system
after measurement. I do allow for situations where we write a
superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what
the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In
the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I
argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by
the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and
not even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So
it is in fact impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger
considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano 
second. So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition 
remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times. So the 
cat is always in a /*classical*/ state between |alive> and |dead>. These 
are never in superposition.



*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
nano-second.


*And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly 
pointed out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of 
superposition; namely, that the system represented by a superposition, 
is in all components states simultaneously. AG

*


It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other 
macroscopic objects, with rare laboratory exceptions.  Any old plane 
polarized photon can be represented as being in a superposition of left 
and right circular polarization.  It is */not/* the case that a system 
is in all basis states at once unless you count being in state /|x>/  
with zero amplitude as being in /x/.


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-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
   

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>
>>
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>> physically implementing it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>


*CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat 
is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. It 
doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. And for 
this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed out the 
fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, that the 
system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
simultaneously. 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>wrote:

/
>
A concept of "influence" without any information transfer
is ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be
dependent on the particular interpretation used, it has
no operational meaning.
/

/
/
Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating
means transferring Shannon style information and entanglement
can't do that faster than light. But it will still let you
influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement can
influence things faster than light but you need more than
that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure
that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that
standard; all it can do is change one apparently random state
to another apparently random state.

You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and
you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I
flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and
tails and then just one hour later you do the same thing.


It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because
of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.


Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an
explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is
ruled out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to
many-worlds doesn't work either. I think that any "common cause"
explanation would have to contend with the Kochen-Specker theorem
-- which also rules out any such hidden variables.


Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell did, 
which is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.


No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual definiteness. 
See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock", Am. J. Phys. 78, 
121 (2010). Neither, of course, do Kochen and Specker. Their proof is 
entirely logical and depends on the properties of non-commuting 
operators. Bell proved something similar in his 1966 paper on the 
problem of hidden variables.


Deflecting Bell's theorem does not actually help in giving a local 
account of EPR-type correlations. Bell inequalities can be proved 
without ever referring to quantum mechanics -- they depend only on the 
assumption of locality. Experiment shows that these inequalities are 
violated.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> >>
>>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>>> do the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> *>It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
>> location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location
>> they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is
>> not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it
>> would require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.*
>>
>
>
> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>
>
So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
>>> ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the
>>> particular interpretation used, it has no operational meaning. *
>>
>>
>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means
>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that
>> faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than
>> light. Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you
>> need more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure
>> that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all
>> it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently
>> random state.
>>
>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>> do the same thing.
>>
>
> It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location,
> then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were
> created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is not not
> needed under QM to explain EPR.
>
>
> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an
> explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled
> out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work
> either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend
> with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden
> variables.
>

Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell did, which
is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>
>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>> do the same thing.
>>
>
> *>It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
> location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location
> they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is
> not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it
> would require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.*
>


I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.

John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread Bruce Kellett

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>wrote:

/
>
A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent
on the particular interpretation used, it has no operational
meaning.
/

/
/
Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means
transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do
that faster than light. But it will still let you influence things
faster than light. Quantum entanglement can influence things
faster than light but you need more than that to transmit
information, you need a standard to measure that change against,
and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it can do
is change one apparently random state to another apparently random
state.

You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and you're in
the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my
coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and tails and then
just one hour later you do the same thing.


It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one 
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the 
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of 
this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.


Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an 
explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled 
out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't 
work either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to 
contend with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such 
hidden variables.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


*>maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to put a
> probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited the rule (and
> actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason proved
> it in 1957.*


True.
Gleason's theorem
says
that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of
the absolute value of
Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), can yield probabilities
that are unitary, that is to say the only one
where all the probabilities add up to exactly 1.
So the real question is why we have to deal with probabilities at all
instead of certainty.


> >
> *So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived from first
> principles" than does Schroedinger's equation*



Without the Schroedinger's equation the Born rule would be talking about
square of the absolute value of a undefined function, and that wouldn't be
of much use to anybody.



> >
> *Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply
> it. *
>


Schroedinger's equation
is not always correct, a electron doesn't have a wave that
Schroedinger
says it should when it is observed. But what exactly does that mean? Nobody
knows for sure, that's why there re so many different quantum
interpretations.

John K Clark

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread Brent Meeker



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think
agree that this is what happens if you describe the couple
“observer particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a
consequence of elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you
add the unintelligible collapse of the wave, which for me just
means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of
an operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal
measurements are rare in QM. All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit examples are destructive measurements. 
You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a complete
set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates that
will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state
and the mathematics says there is some operator for which that is
the eigenstate.  But in general we don't know what that operator
is and we have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I 
am assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a 
complete set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this 
basis, and that this representation corresponds to the state of the 
system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition 
is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates 
simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. 
I do allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of 
eigenstates even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up 
+ Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the 
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, 
which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is 
alive and dead simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).


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.


  1   2   3   >