subject:"Re\: QM"

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/8/2020 5:55 AM, John Clark wrote:



On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:33 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:


>> Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is
untrue, it's specifically engineered in such a way to make
sure that could never happen, but it is certainly possible to
prove that superdeterminism is silly. It says that in order
for the world to be the way it appears to be now the initial
conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago MUST have
been in one and only one SUPER specific starting condition,


/> Isn’t that just determinism?/


No. There are an astronomically huge number of random initial 
conditions the Big Bang could've started out in and the world would be 
very much as it is now, but super determinism says only one of those 
initial conditions will do, because only one of them will cause human 
experimenters to ALWAYS make the wrong choice when they decide how to 
orientate their polarizing filters or Stern–Gerlach magnets leading 
them to ALWAYS incorrectly conclude that things were either not 
realistic or not local. Out of the huge, possibly infinite, number of 
initial conditions the universe could have started out in 
superdeterminism insists it could not have started out in just any old 
random way, it had to start out in the one and only one way that would 
make fools out of human beings 13.8 billion years later.


As I said before nobody will ever be able to prove that super 
determinism is untrue, perhaps the universe really is a put-up job, 
just a big practical joke with human beings being the butt of the 
joke, but one can't help but ask what caused the universe to start out 
in such an extremely non-random way? Maybe there really is a God but 
He is a slapstick comedian with a very sick sense of humor.


It's determinism with time-reversible dynamics...just like Newtonian 
mechanics.  It's determinism both ways...with no mystic "free will" that 
violates it.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6cbd3abf-0ace-decd-f230-05a5d22a480c%40verizon.net.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-08 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:33 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>> Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is untrue, it's
>> specifically engineered in such a way to make sure that could never happen,
>> but it is certainly possible to prove that superdeterminism is silly. It
>> says that in order for the world to be the way it appears to be now the
>> initial conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago MUST have been in
>> one and only one SUPER specific starting condition,
>>
>
> *> Isn’t that just determinism?*
>

No. There are an astronomically huge number of random initial conditions
the Big Bang could've started out in and the world would be very much as it
is now, but super determinism says only one of those initial conditions
will do, because only one of them will cause human experimenters to ALWAYS
make the wrong choice when they decide how to orientate their polarizing
filters or Stern–Gerlach magnets leading them to ALWAYS incorrectly
conclude that things were either not realistic or not local. Out of the
huge, possibly infinite, number of initial conditions the universe could
have started out in superdeterminism insists it could not have started out
in just any old random way, it had to start out in the one and only one way
that would make fools out of human beings 13.8 billion years later.

As I said before nobody will ever be able to prove that super determinism
is untrue, perhaps the universe really is a put-up job, just a big
practical joke with human beings being the butt of the joke, but one can't
help but ask what caused the universe to start out in such an extremely
non-random way? Maybe there really is a God but He is a slapstick comedian
with a very sick sense of humor.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv28Q6Pv-A8y7WQ373y%3Dy4ryjK_G0kgQhMHEQ0iv1T6kcg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/7/2020 7:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:02 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:

> /The Bell inequality means that if we assume reality, which is
there is some existential basis for observables prior to a
measurement, then we have nonlocality./

You could still have locality if things were SUPER-deterministic, but 
that's the only way you could have Reality, Locality and Determinism. 
And regular determinism won't work because that just means the present 
state Is determined by the previous one, you need SUPER-determinism 
which means the universe had to start out in one and only one SUPER 
specific state 13.8 billion years ago.

But that's true of any deterministic theory whose dynamics are time 
reversible. Such a theory, like Newton's clockwork universe has 
one-to-one time evolution mapping.  You seem think a merely 
deterministic, but non-reversible theory is unremarkable and easy to 
accept.  But such a theory implies that time reversal maps one-to-many 
and so many possible pasts converged to today.  That seems as least as 
preposterous and super-determinism.

Brent

I think it would be nice to have Reality, Locality and Determinism but 
SUPER-determinism is far far too high a price to pay for having all 
3. I'll have to settle for Reality.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c8fdd77-fe34-50bb-936a-aa7c9d194eb2%40verizon.net.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Monday, September 7, 2020 at 9:06:21 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:02 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>> > *The Bell inequality means that if we assume reality, which is there 
>> is some existential basis for observables prior to a measurement, then we 
>> have nonlocality.*
>>
> You could still have locality if things were SUPER-deterministic, but 
> that's the only way you could have Reality, Locality and Determinism. And 
> regular determinism won't work because that just means the present state Is 
> determined by the previous one, you need SUPER-determinism which means 
> the universe had to start out in one and only one SUPER specific state 
> 13.8 billion years ago. I think it would be nice to have Reality, Locality 
> and Determinism but SUPER-determinism is far far too high a price to pay 
> for having all 3. I'll have to settle for Reality. 
>
> John K Clark
>

Much of this issue of superdeterminism is an interest in having local 
hidden variables. In the Wigner set up, observers and their friends,, it is 
natural to assume there is a joint probability for all four measurements of 
Alice-Bob and Charlie-Debbie. Following reasoning with local hidden 
variables correlations must obey Bell inequalities. One of the Bell 
inequalities, two measurement settings per party and binary outcomes, is 
violated in a six-photon experiment [Proietti, M. et al. Sci. Adv. 5, 9832 
(2019]. This supports the conclusion no joint probability exists, which 
means superobserver's and the friend's data are fundamentally inconsistent. 

In this setting we can have a superdeterminism, but nobody can agree on 
anything. Superdeterminism just means there is a causal set that is unitary 
for such local variables, but the locality requirement means there is no 
consistency between the data observers report. This is of course not a way 
we would ordinarily choose to actually measure things, so we loosen the 
locality requirement and the Bell inequality violations are consistent with 
nonlocality. 

Superdeterminism is not that super; if to compare to superheroes it is less 
superman and maybe more antman. 

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/772ff757-bce4-4015-b4f2-18dabde786b5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:36, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:33 AM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
>>
> > *I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to
>> superdeterminism.*
>>
>
> Don't worry about it, nobody ever died from being offended.
>
> > *He either mistakenly or accidentally leaves the reader with the
>> impression that these have been ruled out for good, which is most
>> definitely not the case.*
>>
>
> Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is untrue, it's
> specifically engineered in such a way to make sure that could never happen,
> but it is certainly possible to prove that superdeterminism is silly. It
> says that in order for the world to be the way it appears to be now the
> initial conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago MUST have been in
> one and only one SUPER specific starting condition,
>

Isn’t that just determinism?

and in science the more assumptions you have to make in order for your
> theory to work the less valuable it is, and it's impossible to imagine a
> theory about anything that needs more assumptions to work than
> superdeterminism, except perhaps for the God Theory.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Vmw%2BoxWZwJ%2BAOjGECBwuOinAZPBoDXmwi7DLKBHHPZw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUqjHkcPioutnVQ23B72uGfKxO3s2UKZAVa_utmdePG2A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/7/2020 4:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:33 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:

>///I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift
to superdeterminism./

Don't worry about it, nobody ever died from being offended.

>/He either mistakenly or accidentally leaves the reader with the
impression that these have been ruled out for good, which is most
definitely not the case./

Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is untrue, 
it's specifically engineered in such a way to make sure that could 
never happen, but it is certainly possible to prove that 
superdeterminism is silly. It says that in order for the world to be 
the way it appears to be now the initial conditions of the universe 
13.8 billion years ago MUST have been in one and only one SUPER 
specific starting condition, and in science the more assumptions you 
have to make in order for your theory to work the less valuable it is, 
and it's impossible to imagine a theory about anything that needs more 
assumptions to work than superdeterminism, except perhaps for the God 
Theory.

It's not an assumption.  It's an inference.  Determinism is the 
assumption.  And just as for Laplace, determinism entails that the 
universe began in a state which dynamics maps one-to-one into our 
current state.

If you instead assume indeterminism then that entails a SUPER SPECIFIC 
sequence of random events to arrive at our current state.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a544687-80de-f7ac-77e1-ba9eb4375fe2%40verizon.net.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:02 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > *The Bell inequality means that if we assume reality, which is there is
> some existential basis for observables prior to a measurement, then we have
> nonlocality.*
>
You could still have locality if things were SUPER-deterministic, but
that's the only way you could have Reality, Locality and Determinism. And
regular determinism won't work because that just means the present state Is
determined by the previous one, you need SUPER-determinism which means the
universe had to start out in one and only one SUPER specific state 13.8
billion years ago. I think it would be nice to have Reality, Locality and
Determinism but SUPER-determinism is far far too high a price to pay for having
all 3. I'll have to settle for Reality.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1MSCRj6Q%2BUmqAV8j08dnrjzQ_GMdqdb8PiWDDaRu7uuA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell

The Bell inequality means that if we assume reality, which is there is some 
existential basis for observables prior to a measurement, then we have 
nonlocality. On the other hand, with the Wigner friend and the 
Frauchigger-Renner argument, we can impose locality and have a loss of 
reality. This condition is where one gets superdeterminism. We can look as 
superdeterminism was where hidden variables are nonlocal, where this 
superdeterminism is unobservable and thus effectively nonexistent, or with 
locality, where superdeterminism is in effect unreality. It is a sort of 
nihilism of nonsense. Yet in another setting it can be seen as rather 
illuminating.

LC

On Monday, September 7, 2020 at 6:36:32 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:33 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>>
> > *I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to 
>> superdeterminism.*
>>
>
> Don't worry about it, nobody ever died from being offended. 
>
> > *He either mistakenly or accidentally leaves the reader with the 
>> impression that these have been ruled out for good, which is most 
>> definitely not the case.*
>>
>
> Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is untrue, it's 
> specifically engineered in such a way to make sure that could never happen, 
> but it is certainly possible to prove that superdeterminism is silly. It 
> says that in order for the world to be the way it appears to be now the 
> initial conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago MUST have been in 
> one and only one SUPER specific starting condition, and in science the more 
> assumptions you have to make in order for your theory to work the less 
> valuable it is, and it's impossible to imagine a theory about anything that 
> needs more assumptions to work than superdeterminism, except perhaps for 
> the God Theory.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/82001c22-d0a0-4791-96d0-c6b8634c101bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-07 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:33 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> *I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to
> superdeterminism.*
>

Don't worry about it, nobody ever died from being offended.

> *He either mistakenly or accidentally leaves the reader with the
> impression that these have been ruled out for good, which is most
> definitely not the case.*
>

Nobody will ever be able to prove that superdeterminism is untrue, it's
specifically engineered in such a way to make sure that could never happen,
but it is certainly possible to prove that superdeterminism is silly. It
says that in order for the world to be the way it appears to be now the
initial conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago MUST have been in
one and only one SUPER specific starting condition, and in science the more
assumptions you have to make in order for your theory to work the less
valuable it is, and it's impossible to imagine a theory about anything that
needs more assumptions to work than superdeterminism, except perhaps for
the God Theory.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Vmw%2BoxWZwJ%2BAOjGECBwuOinAZPBoDXmwi7DLKBHHPZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-05 Thread Philip Thrift


Jim Baggott responded to Sabine Hossenfelder on Twitter (- they interact 
frequently there):


"I didn’t cover superdeterminism because I had to be selective, and my 
judgement was based in part on interpretations that have gained some 
traction or attracted attention. I omitted Cramer’s transactional 
interpretation for the same reason. But, had I expressed some opinions 
about superdeterminism,* I doubt you would have been pleased*."

So this whole thing about writing books to inform the public on so-called 
interpretations of QM seems to be a sham: Not really honest and open 
presentations.

Not worth reading.


@philipthrift


On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> I can't see being "personally offended" by failure to mention a theory 
> (unless maybe I invented it); but I would like to hear more exposition on 
> Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.  It does introduce some extra 
> structure (possibility space); but then I think MWI fails in it's attempt 
> to be pure Schoedinger equation.  The TI is like the Copenhagen 
> interpretation, except it gives an answer to the question when/where does 
> the measurement happen, which I think is compatible with Zurek's 
> decoherence and quantum Darwinism.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/4/2020 3:59 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> If you want reality you must consider the wave function as nonlocal, or 
> perform measurements correspond to nonlocality. If you want to show reality 
> is lost then you have to localize measurements, such as the Wigner friend 
> argument and localized observers of observers. QM has no favor one way or 
> the other, and the needle pointing between 0 = locality and 1 = reality 
> only fits with those as we observers impose on nature. 
>
> LC
>
> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:33:57 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> "I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to 
>> superdeterminism. In this approach, quantum mechanics is emergent from a 
>> deterministic hidden-variables model which acknowledges that everything in 
>> the universe is connected with everything else. He either mistakenly or 
>> accidentally leaves the reader with the impression that these have been 
>> ruled out for good, which is most definitely not the case. I cannot really 
>> blame Baggott for this, though, because this omission is widespread in the 
>> scientific literature. I have complained about this on the pages of this 
>> magazine, and will leave it at that."
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder, September 3, 2020
>> http://nautil.us/blog/your-guide-to-the-many-meanings-of-quantum-mechanics
>>
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/264bfb68-98f2-4107-b842-f7c8037d7443n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/571c3081-9e01-479b-8d07-1791969700e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

I can't see being "personally offended" by failure to mention a theory
(unless maybe I invented it); but I would like to hear more exposition
on Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. It does introduce some extra
structure (possibility space); but then I think MWI fails in it's
attempt to be pure Schoedinger equation. The TI is like the Copenhagen
interpretation, except it gives an answer to the question when/where
does the measurement happen, which I think is compatible with Zurek's
decoherence and quantum Darwinism.

Brent

On 9/4/2020 3:59 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
If you want reality you must consider the wave function as nonlocal,
or perform measurements correspond to nonlocality. If you want to show
reality is lost then you have to localize measurements, such as the
Wigner friend argument and localized observers of observers. QM has no
favor one way or the other, and the needle pointing between 0 =
locality and 1 = reality only fits with those as we observers impose
on nature.

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:33:57 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

"I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to
superdeterminism. In this approach, quantum mechanics is emergent
from a deterministic hidden-variables model which acknowledges
that everything in the universe is connected with everything else.
He either mistakenly or accidentally leaves the reader with the
impression that these have been ruled out for good, which is most
definitely not the case. I cannot really blame Baggott for this,
though, because this omission is widespread in the scientific
literature. I have complained about this on the pages of this
magazine, and will leave it at that."

Sabine Hossenfelder, September 3, 2020
http://nautil.us/blog/your-guide-to-the-many-meanings-of-quantum-mechanics

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/264bfb68-98f2-4107-b842-f7c8037d7443n%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F52F220.5030307%40verizon.net.

Re: QM gets personal

2020-09-04 Thread Lawrence Crowell

If you want reality you must consider the wave function as nonlocal, or 
perform measurements correspond to nonlocality. If you want to show reality 
is lost then you have to localize measurements, such as the Wigner friend 
argument and localized observers of observers. QM has no favor one way or 
the other, and the needle pointing between 0 = locality and 1 = reality 
only fits with those as we observers impose on nature.

LC

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:33:57 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> "I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to 
> superdeterminism. In this approach, quantum mechanics is emergent from a 
> deterministic hidden-variables model which acknowledges that everything in 
> the universe is connected with everything else. He either mistakenly or 
> accidentally leaves the reader with the impression that these have been 
> ruled out for good, which is most definitely not the case. I cannot really 
> blame Baggott for this, though, because this omission is widespread in the 
> scientific literature. I have complained about this on the pages of this 
> magazine, and will leave it at that."
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder, September 3, 2020
> http://nautil.us/blog/your-guide-to-the-many-meanings-of-quantum-mechanics
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/264bfb68-98f2-4107-b842-f7c8037d7443n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: QM makes a "[Dr.] B."-line to the future

2019-12-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 16 Dec 2019, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Good.  I'm always looking for someplace Bruno could apply his ToE and make 
> some testable predictions.  If physics is based on a p-adic metric that seems 
> to be something that might be derived from his theory of computational 
> physics.


I am not sure how superdeterminisme would help. Maybe you are saying that if 
superdeterminism is verified, and that the measurement problem is solved 
through it, Mechanism would be refuted? 

I would think so.

Digital Mechanism, up to now, predict more a super-indeterminism than a 
superdeterminism. Then, by a sort of miracle, the statistics on the 
computations obeys a quantum logic implying a similar determinacy (à-la QM), 
with a 3p determinism accompanied by a strong (maybe to strong actually, cf the 
white rabbits) first person indeterminacy. 

It is only the conjunction of Gödel and of EPR which makes me realise that 
Digital Mechanism might be plausible.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> 
> 
> via   
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-path-we-didnt-take.html 
> 
> 
> Rethinking Superdeterminism
> 
> S. Hossenfelder 
> ,
>  T.N. Palmer 
> 
> (Submitted on 13 Dec 2019)
> Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 
> 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, 
> are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks 
> a physical description of the measurement process. This "measurement problem" 
> indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory -- good as 
> far as it goes, but missing a piece -- or, more radically, is in need of 
> complete overhaul.
> Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or 
> replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which 
> violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of 
> hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests 
> that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of 
> science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is 
> typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations.
> The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to 
> Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear 
> systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a 
> promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to 
> understand the apparent nonlocality of quantum physics. Most importantly, we 
> will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) 
> model independent way.
> Comments: 23 pages, 2 figures
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); General Relativity and Quantum 
> Cosmology (gr-qc)
> Cite as:  arXiv:1912.06462  [quant-ph]
>   (or arXiv:1912.06462v1  [quant-ph] 
> for this version)
> Bibliographic data
> [Enable Bibex <>(What is Bibex? )]
> Submission history
> From: Sabine Hossenfelder [view email 
> ]
> [v1] Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:25:21 UTC (421 KB)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to atvoid-2+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid-2/de378ddf-6445-4434-b5c3-1f1a44262653%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a6f792f5-834f-be55-8b90-133bea71b23e%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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

Re: QM Automata

2017-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Jul 2017, at 06:45, Brent Meeker wrote:

Here are a couple of papers that may be of interest.  Albert  
considers what a QM automata may know about itself and arrives at  
some unexpected result.  Peres throws some cold water on the result  
- but Peres doesn't believe in a multiverse.


That paper by Albert use the FPI, or a quantum FPI-like notion, and is  
close to Everett's view. Yet, if I remember correctly, Albert, who  
criticized the Many-World a lot in his book "QM and experiences" has  
restated his self-theory in a Bohmian frame (with still sort of  
parallel universe (as Deutsch argues correctly (I think), and lacking  
particles and full of p-zombies). I found that development very weird,  
and it cannot be used with digital mechanism (even with a quantum  
automata). So Albert was close, but then drifted away ...


I will look at Peres paper, but usually I am not very convinced by its  
metaphysical assumption, even without assuming computationalism.  I  
will comment if I find that I missed something.


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.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: QM Automata

2017-07-12 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


The physics relies on is acknowledged, on not, D. Deutsch @Oxford). Quantum 
computers branching calculations to other universes was Deutsches' bailiwick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPPJ_Ju3xw

I don't know multiple universes, or just one frick'in big one? This one is 
looking dead as a doornail round these parts. 



-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: EveryThing 
Sent: Wed, Jul 12, 2017 12:46 am
Subject: QM Automata

Here are a couple of papers that may be of interest.  Albert considers 
what a QM automata may know about itself and arrives at some unexpected 
result.  Peres throws some cold water on the result - but Peres doesn't 
believe in a multiverse.

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: QM non local? (was Re: The Span of Infinity)

2014-11-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:34, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:55:04PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of
the singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.

Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even
in the many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the
physical reality.

Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the
base {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with
Alice and Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice
and Bob having their respective particle in the state 0.

We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its
particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.

But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0',
up to a phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so
long as 1 and 1' make the same angle: it is just a change of
orthonormal bases.

So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the
different orthonormal bases?



It is interesting you should raise this point. There's a paper by
Mueller and Masanes (2013) (New Journal of Physics, 15, 053040) that
claims to show that 3 dimensions is the only possible spatial  
dimension
allowing Alice to unambiguously communicate to Bob her reference  
basis.


I can't help the feeling that this is related to your insight.


Interesting. That might help to understand where the special role of  
the three space dimensions come from.


Bruno






--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
   (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

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


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: QM non local? (was Re: The Span of Infinity)

2014-11-14 Thread zibbsey



On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

  It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information 
 instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time 
 delay cannot be detected.


 That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light 
 but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it 
 nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's 
 Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things 
 are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much 
 faster than light, probably instantly. 


 Only in mono-universe form of realism. Bell's inequality measure a local 
 (in one branch) non locality, but the wave (which is physical in the MW) 
 evolves locally, without any influence at a distance. there are only 
 interference between states who have evolved locally. 



 Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of the 
 singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.

 Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even in the 
 many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the physical 
 reality.

 Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the base 
 {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with Alice and 
 Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice and Bob having 
 their respective particle in the state 0.

 We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its 
 particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.

 But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0', up to a 
 phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so long as 1 and 1' 
 make the same angle: it is just a change of orthonormal bases.

 So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the different 
 orthonormal bases? 

 The FPI answer here is that Alice and Bob are ignorant on the e^i theta, 
 so there is no way for them to define an absolute fixed orthonormal basis, 
 which are defined by their original choice of the bases used in the 
 preparation of the entangled state. 

 Their is an equivalent superposition for each angle, and in fact any 
 unitary transformation of the states. This is a vast continuum (assuming NR 
 QM to make simple) of such splitting or accessible differentiation 
 possible. In each of them, the correlation are local, and propagate 
 locally. 

 What is wrong is in having given a sense to We know from outside that in 
 this world, would Alice measure its particle state, she would find the 
 correct corresponding value. In fact, we can't know that, because we can 
 see Alice and Bob doing that in all orthonormal bases for each angle, and 
 it is purely conventional to fix the angle, like Alice, in such a way that 
 in her perspective, the particle state is well defined as 0 or 1. She 
 prepared it that way, but of course, that is what believe all Alice, for 
 any 0' and 1' bases, doing any angle phi with 0 and 1.


OK, on the same terms, what's wrong with this explanation: 

Let's say it's reasonable there are 8 levels of detail below me at my 
scale. Two little critters at that level are in the same stack as me but 
they can't exchange information in local realism the same as me...because 
for them that's thousands of miles apart. Yet my locality feasibly can drop 
the same datum into one or both their positions. 

So it follows then, 8 levels up could be the galactic localityI may not 
be able tosignal you across that, but the same datum could be dropped into 
both our positions from 8 levels up in a locally real way

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

Re: QM non local? (was Re: The Span of Infinity)

2014-11-14 Thread zibbsey



On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:16:58 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

  It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information 
 instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time 
 delay cannot be detected.


 That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light 
 but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it 
 nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's 
 Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things 
 are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much 
 faster than light, probably instantly. 


 Only in mono-universe form of realism. Bell's inequality measure a local 
 (in one branch) non locality, but the wave (which is physical in the MW) 
 evolves locally, without any influence at a distance. there are only 
 interference between states who have evolved locally. 



 Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of the 
 singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.

 Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even in 
 the many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the physical 
 reality.

 Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the base 
 {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with Alice and 
 Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice and Bob having 
 their respective particle in the state 0.

 We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its 
 particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.

 But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0', up to 
 a phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so long as 1 and 
 1' make the same angle: it is just a change of orthonormal bases.

 So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the different 
 orthonormal bases? 

 The FPI answer here is that Alice and Bob are ignorant on the e^i 
 theta, so there is no way for them to define an absolute fixed orthonormal 
 basis, which are defined by their original choice of the bases used in the 
 preparation of the entangled state. 

 Their is an equivalent superposition for each angle, and in fact any 
 unitary transformation of the states. This is a vast continuum (assuming NR 
 QM to make simple) of such splitting or accessible differentiation 
 possible. In each of them, the correlation are local, and propagate 
 locally. 

 What is wrong is in having given a sense to We know from outside that in 
 this world, would Alice measure its particle state, she would find the 
 correct corresponding value. In fact, we can't know that, because we can 
 see Alice and Bob doing that in all orthonormal bases for each angle, and 
 it is purely conventional to fix the angle, like Alice, in such a way that 
 in her perspective, the particle state is well defined as 0 or 1. She 
 prepared it that way, but of course, that is what believe all Alice, for 
 any 0' and 1' bases, doing any angle phi with 0 and 1.


 OK, on the same terms, what's wrong with this explanation: 

 Let's say it's reasonable there are 8 levels of detail below me at my 
 scale. Two little critters at that level are in the same stack as me but 
 they can't exchange information in local realism the same as me...because 
 for them that's thousands of miles apart. Yet my locality feasibly can drop 
 the same datum into one or both their positions. 

 So it follows then, 8 levels up could be the galactic localityI may 
 not be able tosignal you across that, but the same datum could be dropped 
 into both our positions from 8 levels up in a locally real way


i.e. so it's at least feasible I can communicate non-locally with you 
by shunting my datum up 8 levels and somehow knowing it'll shunt down 8 
levels the other side to you.

 but it only works if there is energy upward. But that's the interesting 
thing about entanglement. The combined states of the system as a whole are 
fewer than the sum of the two unentangled particles. So that means, 
feasibly, entanglement reduces entropy at some level of that. And less 
entropy means Energy for Work just became available. Which could be 
deployed to shunt my datum upward.

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

Re: QM non local? (was Re: The Span of Infinity)

2014-11-14 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:55:04PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of
 the singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
 
 Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even
 in the many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the
 physical reality.
 
 Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the
 base {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with
 Alice and Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice
 and Bob having their respective particle in the state 0.
 
 We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its
 particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.
 
 But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0',
 up to a phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so
 long as 1 and 1' make the same angle: it is just a change of
 orthonormal bases.
 
 So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the
 different orthonormal bases?
 

It is interesting you should raise this point. There's a paper by
Mueller and Masanes (2013) (New Journal of Physics, 15, 053040) that
claims to show that 3 dimensions is the only possible spatial dimension
allowing Alice to unambiguously communicate to Bob her reference basis.

I can't help the feeling that this is related to your insight.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

Re: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-03 Thread LizR

This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the
Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us
at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a
lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO.

Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new research
 have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation of
 quantum mechanics.


This seems to me a rather big ask, and is one of the objections I (and
maybe others) have raised to Tronnies. If you are going to extract
quantised behaviour from something classical (i.e. from something that is
continuous and infinitely divisible) you need your states to emerge exactly
- to infinite precision - to get them identical in different parts of the
universe (e.g. in the spectral lines from trillions of stars). Otherwise,
it seems reasonable to suppose that you will only get similar solutions,
like a classical particle orbitting in a potential well they should be
subject to small perturbations. Using a fluid medium filling space (aside
from any considerations of Lorentz invariance etc) seems to me a way to
allow all sorts of influences to get at, say, an electron inside a hydrogen
atom. So each H atom should have a slightly different spectral signature.

There is also a local mechanism for EPR suggested, which I would imagine is
equivalent to hidden variables. I was under the impression that Bell's
inequality ruled these out (except in the case of time symmetry). Has this
been rescinded?

I would hope that the pilot wave approach makes different predictions to
others, which will allow it to be tested experimentally. A 500 qubit
quantum computer which worked would apparently rule out most theories apart
from the MWI, for example - does the PWI have anything similar? Otherwise
as David Deutsch said, isn't it just Everett with one world singled out by
a (so far undetectable) bolt-on extra ?

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

Re: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-03 Thread LizR

Oops I think I should have read Telmo's post before making mine. Apparently
there is a potential smoking gun to show that de Brglie/Bohm dunnit.

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

Re: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-03 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the
Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us
at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a
lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO.

Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new
research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation
of quantum mechanics.

A fkuid explanation of QM is consistent with string theory where a
nonlinear hyper-EM Flux or fluid
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-form_electrodynamics)
(the low energy equivalent of the hyper-Flux is electromagnetism.)

is responsible for the compactification of 6 space dimensions as 3 space
dimensions inflate
and seemingly one space dimension turns into a time dimension,
just the opposite of what happens at the event horizon of a black hole
where the time dimension turns into the radial space dimension,
at least in one solution to the equations of GR.

I also believe as a graduate mechanical engineer
that the hyper-Flux may be amenable to a higher level Navier-Stokes
treatment
of an totally entangled (BEC) Flux medium while maintaining consistency
with quantum mechanics.

But I wonder if the Flux is compressible
and if the Flux could be simulated experimentally
using the techniques of condensed matter physics
(http://f3.tiera.ru/other/DVD-005/Bruus_H
.,_Flensberg_K._Many-body_Quantum_Theory_In_Condensed_Matter_Physics%5Bc%5D_An_Introduction_(2002)(en)(336s).pdf)

In the beginnings of odd centuries, experiments rule.
Richard

This seems to me a rather big ask, and is one of the objections I (and
maybe others) have raised to Tronnies. If you are going to extract
quantised behaviour from something classical (i.e. from something that is
continuous and infinitely divisible) you need your states to emerge exactly
- to infinite precision - to get them identical in different parts of the
universe (e.g. in the spectral lines from trillions of stars). Otherwise,
it seems reasonable to suppose that you will only get similar solutions,
like a classical particle orbitting in a potential well they should be
subject to small perturbations. Using a fluid medium filling space (aside
from any considerations of Lorentz invariance etc) seems to me a way to
allow all sorts of influences to get at, say, an electron inside a hydrogen
atom. So each H atom should have a slightly different spectral signature.

There is also a local mechanism for EPR suggested, which I would imagine
is equivalent to hidden variables. I was under the impression that Bell's
inequality ruled these out (except in the case of time symmetry). Has this
been rescinded?

I would hope that the pilot wave approach makes different predictions to
others, which will allow it to be tested experimentally. A 500 qubit
quantum computer which worked would apparently rule out most theories apart
from the MWI, for example - does the PWI have anything similar? Otherwise
as David Deutsch said, isn't it just Everett with one world singled out by
a (so far undetectable) bolt-on extra ?

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

Re: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-02 Thread smitra

Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further 
insights from this experiments allowing them to e.g. predict subtle 
patterns in interference phenomena that shouldn't be there acording to 
orthodox quantum mechanics.


De Broglie-Bohm theory looks to me a bit like the old aether theory of 
electromagnetism that preceded special relativity. Strictly speaking 
there can be devations from the Born rule, but they always assume that 
there is so-called quantum equlibrium making the Born rule is valid. 
So, my (non-expert) opinion is that you should look here first, why 
can't you device some experiment where you are most likely going to 
violate this assumption?


This is also explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium

The existence of quantum non-equilibrium states has not been verified 
experimentally; quantum non-equilibrium is so far a theoretical 
construct. The relevance of quantum non-equilibrium states to physics 
lies in the fact that they can lead to different predictions for 
results of experiments, depending on whether the De Broglie–Bohm 
theory in its stochastic form or the Copenhagen interpretation is 
assumed to describe reality. (The Copenhagen interpretation, which 
stipulates the Born rule a priori, does not foresee the existence of 
quantum non-equilibrium states at all.) That is, properties of quantum 
non-equilibrium can make certain classes of Bohmian theories 
falsifiable according to the criterion of Karl Popper.




Citeren Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:


Hi all,

I would like to know what people here make of this...
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality

Cheers
Telmo.

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

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

Re: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-02 Thread Richard Ruquist

It seems to me that double-slit/single-photon experiments
illustrate the approach to quantum equilibrium in great detail.
Richard


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

 Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further
 insights from this experiments allowing them to e.g. predict subtle
 patterns in interference phenomena that shouldn't be there acording to
 orthodox quantum mechanics.

 De Broglie-Bohm theory looks to me a bit like the old aether theory of
 electromagnetism that preceded special relativity. Strictly speaking there
 can be devations from the Born rule, but they always assume that there is
 so-called quantum equlibrium making the Born rule is valid. So, my
 (non-expert) opinion is that you should look here first, why can't you
 device some experiment where you are most likely going to violate this
 assumption?

 This is also explained here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium

 The existence of quantum non-equilibrium states has not been verified
 experimentally; quantum non-equilibrium is so far a theoretical construct.
 The relevance of quantum non-equilibrium states to physics lies in the fact
 that they can lead to different predictions for results of experiments,
 depending on whether the De Broglie–Bohm theory in its stochastic form or
 the Copenhagen interpretation is assumed to describe reality. (The
 Copenhagen interpretation, which stipulates the Born rule a priori, does
 not foresee the existence of quantum non-equilibrium states at all.) That
 is, properties of quantum non-equilibrium can make certain classes of
 Bohmian theories falsifiable according to the criterion of Karl Popper.



 Citeren Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:


  Hi all,

 I would like to know what people here make of this...
 http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality

 Cheers
 Telmo.

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

56 matches

Mail list logo