subject:"Re\: Spin Superposition"

On Friday, November 15, 2024 at 12:16:13 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/14/2024 8:53 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote

On 11/14/2024 11:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains

I did NOT acknowledge that. You seem deliberately obtuse. These
"mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity. If you feel Bell experiments are
mysterious I challenge you to name some possible solution to the mystery.

Brent

Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery".

Which is not equivalent to "there is a mystery" except in your unscientific
world where there is never suspension of belief.

*You just can't get away from binary choices. Don't you ever think of NOT
drawing a conclusion until there is sufficient evidence, of never jumping
to a conclusion. Brent*

More BS. What binary choices are you referring to? I haven't drawn any
conclusions, but I am allowed to consider reasonable inferences. I am
uncertain what the results of Bell experiments imply, and I have stated
that numerous times in different ways. I am certain that your comfort zone
is not a criterion for whether a theory is true. (Please; no BS that no
physical theory can be considered "true".) AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/14/2024 8:53 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/14/2024 11:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains

I did NOT acknowledge that. You seem deliberately obtuse.
These "mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity. If you feel
Bell experiments are mysterious I challenge you to name some
possible solution to the mystery.

Brent

Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery".

Which is not equivalent to "there is a mystery" except in your
unscientific world where there is never suspension of belief.

Brent*

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 11:13:31 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/13/2024 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 7:25:55 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

The fact that a theory does not claim to explain consciousness does not
mean that it cannot be useful, or explain other things within its domain of
application. The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not
actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation
in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds
theory does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement, and
it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any other.
This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics as the
result of a stochastic process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that
we get only one result for any experiment, and that result is an eigenvalue
of the measurement operator, randomly selected from the possible
eigenvalues.

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

FWIW, all equations of the laws of physics are epistemic insofar as they
describe reality, but don't exist as physical entities in spacetime. If you
kick them, they don't kick back (to paraphrase the Late Vic Stenger). AG

Equations are not in question. It's the things referred to in the
equations and laws, e.g. the wave function, entropy, energy,...

Brent

The wf in QM is epistemic IMO, since it predicts non-physical things called
probabilities. They can't kick back because you can't kick them. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/14/2024 11:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains

Brent

Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery".

Which is not equivalent to "there is a mystery" except in your unscientific
world where there is never suspension of belief.

*The contra-positive of your statement "I didn't say there's "no mystery" "
is equivalent to, I think, "I said there is a mystery"; or if not, the
latter is a reasonable inference. But regardless, you're entitled to a
Nobel in the Philosophy of Science, insofar as you invented a new
scientific method! Specifically, if you're uncomfortable with interpreting
a theory, and later, after thinking about it a lot and becoming
comfortable, you can claim the theory is true. Case in point, Bell
experiments and the wf for entangled particles, lead some of us to conclude
they imply instantaneous action at the distance. We might be mistaken, but
thankfully, since you're comfortable with negating this possibility, we can
all submit to your COMFORT, or shall we say to your FAMILIARITY, and sleep
well. Given the foregoing, you've got a really big set of balls to claim I
live in an unscientific world. People in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones. AG *

I said we correctly predict every experiment. My point is that there is no
more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer
my question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the
mystery?" Little green men?"

*Oh, I get it. TY. The mysteries are solved by familiarity. IOW, if you
look long enough at something you don't understand, the mysteries
disappear? *

*If you use it enough you absorb the solutions into your intuition. Do you
have intuitions about Newtonian gravity? About F=ma? Are they
mysterious? How about a little introspection.*

*How about ceasing your BS? Familiarly with any theory is hardly a test of
its validity. Again, you bring up Newtonian gravity. We became familiar
with it only because it's a **weak field approximation to GR and therefore
works well within the solar system. And Newton had no clue how it could
work instantaneously (which it does not). AG *

* Brent *

*And if I can't solve the mystery -- possible faster than light behavior --
I'm obtuse. You're in line for a Nobel. Let me be the first to
congratulate you. I suggest you go argue with Bruce. IIRC, he thinks QM is
non local. AG*

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 8:05 AM John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:26 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

*>> The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with information, and
information is physical; Landauer's principle allows us to calculate the
fundamental lower bound on the energy needed to erase one bit of
information, it is kT ln 2, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
temperature in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 2.9 x 10^-21
joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me.*

>*Sounds like a theory to me. *
"https://arxiv.org/html/2402.15812v1";

*Sounds like a theory to me too, maybe it's true, but even if it is I note
that they include with: *

*"**Although our erasing strategy can operate in a regime that goes beyond
the Landauer limit, the statement that the erasure of information always
produces heat still holds true. In fact, as discussed in Subsec. III B, the
memory always ends up in the ground state by releasing some amount of heat.
In this context, the present erasure protocol can also be understood as a
perfect cooling process. In this context, the present erasure protocol can
also be understood as a perfect cooling process. Our results strengthen the
view that quantum processes can surpass certain classical thermodynamic
limits, and may contribute to the progress of the emerging field of green
computing"*

*So information is still physical *

Information can be recorded on physical devices. Landauer says nothing more
than that erasing this physical record requires energy. The physical
record is not the information -- map and territory confusion yet again.

Bruce

If physical record is not information, then nothing was lost when the
Library of Alexandria burned down. AG

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/14/2024 1:05 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:26 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


*>> The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with
information, and information is physical; Landauer's principle
allows us to calculate the fundamental lower bound on the
energy needed to erase one bit of  information, it is _kT ln
2_, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature
in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 2.9 x 10^-21
joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me.*

>/Sounds like a theory to me. /
"https://arxiv.org/html/2402.15812v1";



*Sounds like a theory to me too, maybe it's true, but even if it is I 
note that they include with: *


*/"/**/Although our erasing strategy can operate in a regime that goes 
beyond the Landauer limit, the statement that the erasure of 
information always produces heat still holds true. In fact, as 
discussed in Subsec. III B, the memory always ends up in the ground 
state by releasing some amount of heat. In this context, the present 
erasure protocol can also be understood as a perfect cooling 
process. In this context, the present erasure protocol can also be 
understood as a perfect cooling process. Our results strengthen the 
view that quantum processes can surpass certain classical 
thermodynamic limits, and may contribute to the progress of the 
emerging field of green computing"/*

*/
/*
*So information is still physical
*
Chalk on a blackboard is physical too but it isn't entropy just because 
you write S=kT ln(2).*


*

*
*

*>> JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with Many
Worlds or with quantum mechanics, the only thing they have in
common is that consciousness is strange and quantum mechanics
is strange.*

So you were wrong to write,``"measurement" implies that a
consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved'' or are
you now saying "measurement" has nothing to do with MW?


*Forget many worlds forget quantum mechanics, even Newton knew that if 
you say "X measured my foot" then that implies X is consciousness, or 
at least an intelligence. If you say "X changed my foot" then X may or 
may not be conscious or intelligent.

*


Then what do you call all the decoherence implementing interactions not 
involving consciousness or intelligence, which convert superpositions to 
classical mixtures.  It was my impression you called them all 
measurements in the past.


Brent

*John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
*

cmt
--
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2n_axzAyp_fmibXfpXXB6R%2BywAsjkQhWdgaE9VCa6tqQ%40mail.gmail.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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cf3ca2e4-5567-4fe6-93c0-4f56034ed407%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-14 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 8:05 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:26 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> *>> The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with information, and
>>> information is physical; Landauer's principle allows us to calculate the
>>> fundamental lower bound on the energy needed to erase one bit of
>>>  information, it is kT ln 2, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
>>> temperature in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 2.9 x 10^-21
>>> joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me.*
>>
>>
>
> >*Sounds like a theory to me. *
>> "https://arxiv.org/html/2402.15812v1";
>> 
>>
>
> *Sounds like a theory to me too, maybe it's true, but even if it is I note
> that they include with: *
>
> *"**Although our erasing strategy can operate in a regime that goes
> beyond the Landauer limit, the statement that the erasure of information
> always produces heat still holds true. In fact, as discussed in Subsec. III
> B, the memory always ends up in the ground state by releasing some amount
> of heat. In this context, the present erasure protocol can also be
> understood as a perfect cooling process.  In this context, the present
> erasure protocol can also be understood as a perfect cooling process. Our
> results strengthen the view that quantum processes can surpass certain
> classical thermodynamic limits, and may contribute to the progress of the
> emerging field of green computing"*
>
> *So information is still physical *
>

Information can be recorded on physical devices. Landauer says nothing more
than that erasing this physical record requires energy.  The physical
record is not the information -- map and territory confusion yet again.

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS0nza3qoX1ZreNZXhJf%3DD0JfH%2BaxvdLXNgPXwTGTryLw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/14/2024 11:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 12:06:23 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:




On 11/13/2024 7:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



Anything faster than light is instantaneous
in some reference frame; and goes in either
direction depending on the reference frame.
Which is a good reason for supposing no
information can be transmitted FoL.


Brent


That's one data point. Another is the fact that
neither member of an entangled pair has a
preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before
measurement, but it does have a spin because when
you measure it you never get zero spin.


and that when one of a pair is measured, the other
seems to know that value is regardless of the
perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one
spin state from the beginning, when the pair was
created.  They shared this value in Hilbert space.


Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.


So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the
hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on.  We get the
empirically correct prediction for every
experiment. It's just not a nursery story about
little balls.  Five hundred years ago someone with
your attitude would be demanding to know what
spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to
move.  You've just gotten used to mathematical
explanations involving little balls bouncing around
so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.  You
need to update your intuition.

Brent


Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous
because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly
predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?


Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your
illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the
currently most accurate known theory.


namely, that you actually know what's going, and no
less than *exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form.
In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer
the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert
space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms
to your prejudices.

Brent


Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments
which supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the
results since each pair of entangled entities shares a
common vector in Hilbert space? AG


I didn't say there's "no mystery".  I said we correctly
predict every experiment.  My point is that there is no more
mystery than in say Newtonian gravity.  When are you going to
answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that
eliminates the mystery?"  Little green men?

Brent.


For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains

I did NOT acknowledge that.  You seem deliberately obtuse.  These
"mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity.  If you feel Bell
experiments are mysterious I challenge you to name some possible
solution to the mystery.

Brent


Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery".
Which is not equivalent to "there is a mystery" except in your 
unscientific world where there is never suspension of belief.


I said we correctly predict every experiment.  My point is that there 
is no more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going 
to answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that 
eliminates the mystery?"  Little green men?"


*Oh, I get it. TY. The mysteries are solved by familiarity. IOW, if 
you look long enough at something you don't understand, the mysteries 
disappear? *
*If you use it enough you absorb the solutions into your intuition.  Do 
you have intuitions about Newtonian gravity?  About F=ma?  Are they 
mysterious?  How about a little introspection.


Brent
*
*And if I can't solve the mystery -- possible faster than light 
behavior -- I'm  obtuse. You're in line for a Nobel. Let me be the 
first to congratulate you. I suggest you go argue with Bruce. IIRC, he 
thinks QM is non local. AG*

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

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:42 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>> Superdeterminism?! I think that's the single stupidest idea in all of
>> physics because it's literally impossible to have a greater violation of
>> Occam's razor. For superdeterminism to work you need to make, not an
>> astronomical number but an INFINITE number of assumptions, out of the
>> infinite number of states the early universe could have been in only one of
>> them will work.*
>
>

> *> If the universe is in a single infinite state, then it takes a higher
> order of infinity for MW to have reached that state.*
>

*There are an infinite number of states the early universe could've been
in, and all of them are compatible with the Many Worlds idea; but out of
that infinite number, in only one of them does superdeterminism work.  And
as I said before, Many Worlds does not assume that a huge number of
parallel worlds exists, instead it concludes that they must exist if
Schrodinger's equation means what it says.  *

> *And I notice you skipped over retro-causality. *
>

*Well maybe I can change that so I wouldn't have skipped talking about
retro-causality a half hour ago. And I remember I once got a D on a high
school English test, I think I'll study English poetry real hard right now
so I can improve that grade that I got back when I was 14.*
 *  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
41p

>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3cCBY%3D6bUfodwy3jzQnmZ%2BcDLLRxPO69hNiTy96DRbcA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/14/2024 7:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:24 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

...

/>The Neo-Copenhagen interpretation which says decoherence somehow
selects which probability is realized/

*For some reason when I read the word "somehow" in the above I
remembered an old joke "Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the
play?".

It's no worse than "MW somehow implements the Born rule."

/> I see short comings in all the interpretations. /

*I have said more than once that Many Worldsis the best bad quantum
interpretation, maybe tomorrow somebody will come up with something
better, but until then I'm sticking with Many Worlds, if it's wrong
it's probably because it's not strange enough because no
interpretation is ever going to get rid of quantum weirdness. *

/> Maybe least in the epistemic interpretation, although the PBR
theorem purports to show it's inconsistent with standard QM. /

*Indeed.
*

But the PBR theorem has loop holes:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06436

/> There's also superdeterminism
/

*Superdeterminism?! I think that's the single stupidest idea in all of
physics because it's literally impossible to have a greater violation
of Occam's razor. For superdeterminism to work you need to make, not
an astronomical number but an _INFINITE_ number of assumptions, out of
the infinite number of states the early universe could have been in
only one of them will work.*
If the universe is in a single infinite state, then it takes a higher
order of infinity for MW to have reached that state.

And I notice you skipped over retro-causality. There's also Invariant
Set Theory

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:26 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>> The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with information, and
>> information is physical; Landauer's principle allows us to calculate the
>> fundamental lower bound on the energy needed to erase one bit of
>>  information, it is kT ln 2, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
>> temperature in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 2.9 x 10^-21
>> joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me.*
>
>

>*Sounds like a theory to me. *
> "https://arxiv.org/html/2402.15812v1";
> 
>

*Sounds like a theory to me too, maybe it's true, but even if it is I note
that they include with: *

*"**Although our erasing strategy can operate in a regime that goes beyond
the Landauer limit, the statement that the erasure of information always
produces heat still holds true. In fact, as discussed in Subsec. III B, the
memory always ends up in the ground state by releasing some amount of heat.
In this context, the present erasure protocol can also be understood as a
perfect cooling process.  In this context, the present erasure protocol can
also be understood as a perfect cooling process. Our results strengthen the
view that quantum processes can surpass certain classical thermodynamic
limits, and may contribute to the progress of the emerging field of green
computing"*

*So information is still physical *

*>> JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with Many Worlds or
>> with quantum mechanics, the only thing they have in common is that
>> consciousness is strange and quantum mechanics is strange.*
>
>

So you were wrong to write,``"measurement" implies that a consciousness, or
> at least an intelligence, is involved'' or are you now saying "measurement"
> has nothing to do with MW?

*Forget many worlds forget quantum mechanics, even Newton knew that if you
say "X measured my foot" then that implies X is consciousness, or at least
an intelligence. If you say "X changed my foot" then X may or may not be
conscious or intelligent.  **  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list
at  Extropolis *
cmt

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2n_axzAyp_fmibXfpXXB6R%2BywAsjkQhWdgaE9VCa6tqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/14/2024 6:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:43 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


*>>  for every event, for every point in space and forevery
instant in time, the square of the absolute value of the
quantum wave*

/> You keep forgetting that the wave-function exists in an
infinite dimensional vector space.  NOT 3space. Doesn't sound so
"real" then does it?/


*But ANYTHING can be written as existing in infinite dimensional 
vector space. Sounds like NOTHING is real doesn't it.

*
To me it sounds like "for every event, for every point in space and for 
every instant in time, the square of the absolute value of the thing 
we've written on the black board" isn't real.


> /There are several kinds of probability.  All the ones in QM are
calculated values dependent on humans and their knowledge/


*Humans say a coin flip has a 50-50 probabilitybecause they lack 
knowledge of the local conditions, the precise way the coin was 
flipped and tiny air currents in the immediate vicinity of the coin. 
But in quantum mechanics that's not the reason we must settle for 
probability and can't achieve certainty; Bell's Inequality is violated 
so if quantum weirdness is caused by hidden variables (and I doubt 
they are) they can't be caused by local hidden variables like those of 
a coin flip. *
Was any of that common knowledge relevant to "There are several kinds of 
probability.  All the ones in QM are calculated values dependent on 
humans and their knowledge"?



*
*

*>> **It's true that you can't touch probability, but you
can't touch entropy either, but both are "things" that exist
in the physical world.*

/> I don't think so.  They only exist in our descriptions of the
physical world./


*The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with information, and 
information is physical; Landauer's principle allows us to calculate 
the fundamental lower bound on the energy needed to erase one bit of 
 information, it is _kT ln 2_, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T 
is the temperature in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 
2.9 x 10^-21 joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me. *

Sounds like a theory to me.
"https://arxiv.org/html/2402.15812v1";




*>> "Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change._All
measurements are __changes BUT not all changes are a
measurement_; this is because "measurement" implies that a
consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved"*

**


/> So JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with
measurement,/


*NO! JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with Many Worlds 
or with quantum mechanics, the only thing they have in common is that 
consciousness is strange and quantum mechanics is strange.

*
 So you were wrong to write,``"measurement" implies that a 
consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved'' or are you now 
saying "measurement" has nothing to do with MW?


Brent


*
**John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
*

e4a
*
*
--
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1tDV8yLargp%2B4855aEBzzX1%3D4SFMSvT-fVD_AWq4Qz-A%40mail.gmail.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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29eb5bb7-dd32-49ba-9a33-ee58739b44c1%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/14/2024 6:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:00 PM Bruce Kellett  
wrote:


/> To confuse these variables with the things themselves is to
confuse the map with the territory./


*Thanks to advancements in information science it is now clear that 
information is physical, and because of that and new ideas such as 
virtual reality, the 2D holographic universe, and the simulation 
hypothesis, the clear distinction between the map and the territory 
has become a little more blurry. *

**

/> The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not
actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler
explanation in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For
example, many-worlds theory does not explain why we get only one
result on any measurement,/


*A measurement is performed by an intelligent agent, and like 
everything else in the universe that agent is a quantum object. 
According to Many Worlds when an electron goes left instead of right, 
even though both possibilities are allowed by Schrodinger's equation, 
the electron splits but that's not the only thing that splits, so does 
everything else that interacts with that electron, *


That's the tricky part.  Decoherence explains how a world in which the 
spin is UP becomes orthogonal to a world in which it is DOWN.  But being 
UP v. DOWN is probabilistic and one can as well phrase it as decoherence 
makes the superposition unstable so that it falls into either UP or DOWN 
but not both.


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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90d2af58-48b8-4aeb-8cca-2140864479d8%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 12:06:23 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/13/2024 7:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and
goes in either direction depending on the reference frame. Which is a good
reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on. We get the empirically correct
prediction for every experiment. It's just not a nursery story about
little balls. Five hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be
demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to
move. You've just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving
little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.
You need to update your intuition.

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than *exactly*?
This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context you know
nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert
space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which supports
your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results since each pair of
entangled entities shares a common vector in Hilbert space? AG

I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict every
experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than in say
Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my question, "What would
you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?" Little green men?

Brent.

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains

Brent

Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly
predict every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than
in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my question, "What
would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?" Little green
men?"

*Oh, I get it. TY. The mysteries are solved by familiarity. IOW, if you
look long enough at something you don't understand, the mysteries
disappear? And if I can't solve the mystery -- possible faster than light
behavior -- I'm obtuse. You're in line for a Nobel. Let me be the first to
congratulate you. I suggest you go argue with Bruce. IIRC, he thinks QM is
non local. AG*

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/13/2024 7:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in
some reference frame; and goes in either direction
depending on the reference frame. Which is a good
reason for supposing no information can be
transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither
member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin
before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before
measurement, but it does have a spin because when you
measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other
seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived
separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin
state from the beginning, when the pair was created.
They shared this value in Hilbert space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell
is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on. We get the
empirically correct prediction for every experiment.
It's just not a nursery story about little balls. Five
hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be
demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring
instrument needle to move. You've just gotten used to
mathematical explanations involving little balls
bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian
mathematics. You need to update your intuition.

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because
ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly
predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the
currently most accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less
than *exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact,
in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of
thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow
dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to
your prejudices.

Brent

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which
supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results
since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in
Hilbert space? AG

I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict
every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than
in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my
question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the
mystery?" Little green men?

Brent.

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains
I did NOT acknowledge that. You seem deliberately obtuse. These
"mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity. If you feel Bell experiments
are mysterious I challenge you to name some possible solution to the
mystery.

Brent

(implied by Bell experiments) despite the fact that QM correctly
predicts the results of every experiment, I'd like your opinion or
speculation of the nature or content of this mystery. TY, 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 view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a2175a2-9fb0-4091-90f7-944503602a78n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:24 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>> I've noticed that you have not mentioned what your favorite quantum
>> interpretation is, nor has Bruce Kellett, but if I were to guess I would
>> say both of you are fans of the Shut Up And Calculate (a.k.a. Copenhagen)
>> quantum interpretation. Am I correct? *
>
>
> *> No.  First, "Shut up and calculate" is a caricature of the "Copenhagen"
> interpretation*
>

*I don't think so, Niels Bohr asks us to just accept that something can
exist and not exist and to stop thinking about it anymore. *

> *> which was never even well defined. *
>

*Saying Copenhagen was never well defined is a huge understatement, I don't
think it would be going too far to call it gibberish. Niels Bohr was a
great physicist but a lousy philosopher.*

*>The Neo-Copenhagen interpretation which says decoherence somehow selects
> which probability is realized*
>

*For some reason when I read the word "somehow" in the above I remembered
an old joke "Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?".  *

> *> I see short comings in all the interpretations. *
>

*I have said more than once that Many Worlds is the best bad quantum
interpretation, maybe tomorrow somebody will come up with something better,
but until then I'm sticking with Many Worlds, if it's wrong it's probably
because it's not strange enough because no interpretation is ever going to
get rid of quantum weirdness.  *

> *> Maybe least in the epistemic interpretation, although the PBR theorem
> purports to show it's inconsistent with standard QM. *
>

*Indeed.  *

> * > There's also superdeterminism*
>

*Superdeterminism?! I think that's the single stupidest idea in all of
physics because it's literally impossible to have a greater violation of
Occam's razor. For superdeterminism to work you need to make, not an
astronomical number but an INFINITE number of assumptions, out of the
infinite number of states the early universe could have been in only one of
them will work. *

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*

*oow*

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv37D_U2fChEdM8U%2BN4hkn58BxhrkzNC_JnWG3wrKq4n%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>>  for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
>> time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave*
>
>

*> You keep forgetting that the wave-function exists in an infinite
> dimensional vector space.  NOT 3space.  Doesn't sound so "real" then does
> it?*

*But ANYTHING can be written as existing in infinite dimensional vector
space. Sounds like NOTHING is real doesn't it.  *

 > *There are several kinds of probability.  All the ones in QM are
> calculated values dependent on humans and their knowledge*

*Humans say a coin flip has a 50-50 probability because they lack knowledge
of the local conditions, the precise way the coin was flipped and tiny air
currents in the immediate vicinity of the coin. But in quantum mechanics
that's not the reason we must settle for probability and can't achieve
certainty; Bell's Inequality is violated so if quantum weirdness is caused
by hidden variables (and I doubt they are) they can't be caused by local
hidden variables like those of a coin flip. *

* >> **It's true that you can't touch probability, but you can't touch
>> entropy either, but both are "things" that exist in the physical world.*
>
>

*> I don't think so.  They only exist in our descriptions of the physical
> world.*

*The idea of entropy is inextricably linked with information, and
information is physical; Landauer's principle allows us to calculate the
fundamental lower bound on the energy needed to erase one bit of
 information, it is kT ln 2, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
temperature in degrees kelvin. At room temperature it's about 2.9 x 10^-21
joules per bit. That sure sounds physical to me. *

*>> "Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change. All measurements
>> are changes BUT not all changes are a measurement; this is because
>> "measurement" implies that a consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is
>> involved"*
>
>
> *> So JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with measurement,*
>

*NO! JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with Many Worlds or
with quantum mechanics, the only thing they have in common is that
consciousness is strange and quantum mechanics is strange. *

*  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
e4a

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1tDV8yLargp%2B4855aEBzzX1%3D4SFMSvT-fVD_AWq4Qz-A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:00 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> *> To confuse these variables with the things themselves is to confuse the
> map with the territory.*
>

*Thanks to advancements in information science it is now clear that
information is physical, and because of that and new ideas such as virtual
reality, the 2D holographic universe, and the simulation hypothesis, the
clear distinction between the map and the territory has become a little
more blurry. *

>
> *> The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not actually
> explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation in terms
> of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds theory
> does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement,*
>

*A measurement is performed by an intelligent agent, and like everything
else in the universe that agent is a quantum object. According to Many
Worlds when an electron goes left instead of right, even though both
possibilities are allowed by Schrodinger's equation, the electron splits
but that's not the only thing that splits, so does everything else that
interacts with that electron, and that would include the intelligent
quantum object called "the observer". So in one world the electron goes
right and you observe it going right, and in another world the electron
goes left and you observe the electron going left.*

*People ask if Many Worlds is right then why is it that I never observe the
electron going both ways at the same time? That could only happen if the
electron split but you did not, but that is impossible because you are
compelled to obey the laws of quantum mechanics just as much as an electron
is.  *

> * > and it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any
> other.*
>

*It's amazing how simple, seemingly harmless personal pronouns like "we"
and "I" can sweep so much sloppy reasoning under the rug, especially when
discussing topics like, quantum mechanics, Many Worlds, and of course
consciousness. *

> * > This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics
> as the result of a stochastic process*
>

*Quantum mechanics predicts that if you let X interact with Y and you
observe what is produced and then let the result of that interaction
interact with Z then you will  get one result, but if you do
NOT observe what is produced and then let the result of that interaction,
whatever it is, interact with Z then you will get an entirely different
result. Many Worlds can explain that, invoking a stochastic process can
not.*

*And a stochastic process cannot explain how a quantum bomb tester could
work. *

*If you have information about which way a photon goes in a particular part
of a Mach–Zehnder interferometer (which contains half silvered mirrors)
then it will behave differently than it would if you had no information
about which path the photon took. This fact could even have a practical use
in bomb testing. *

*Suppose you are the foreman of a factory that makes bombs that are
advertised as being so sensitive that if a single photon hit the bomb's
fuse it would go off (I'm not quite sure why anybody would wanna buy such a
product, but this is just a thought experiment so let's just say for some
reason there is a huge demand for such a thing). You have a problem, your
manufacturing process is good but not perfect, sometimes you make a
defective fuse and that bomb will never go off. However your customers
demand perfection, they insist that each fuse be tested so it could be
guaranteed to work. This would seem to be an impossible problem because if
you test a bomb with a photon and it goes off then you know it did work,
but now you don't have the bomb any longer so you can't sell it.*

*But actually there is a way to do this and it involves a Mach–Zehnder
interferometer and whether or not you have information about which way a
photon goes in a particular part of the interferometer. The bad news is
that half of the good bombs that you manufacture will blow up during
testing so you can't sell them, but the other half of them do NOT explode
and even though no photon has ever touched them those bombs are absolutely
certain to work as advertised, they have been tested and now we know for
sure that they are not defective and one single photon will blow them up.
Many Worlds can explain why this works, randomness cannot. *

*The big news is that interaction free measurement is possible:  *

*Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester*

*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
ve2

-- 
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 vie

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/13/2024 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 7:25:55 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce
Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7
Bruce Kellett wrote:

The fact that a theory does not claim to explain
consciousness does not mean that it cannot be
useful, or explain other things within its domain
of application. The problem we have is that
many-worlds theory does not actually explain
anything that does not already have a simpler
explanation in terms of some other, less
extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds
theory does not explain why we get only one result
on any measurement, and it does not explain why we
get the observed result rather than any other.
This observed fact is easily explained in standard
quantum mechanics as the result of a stochastic
process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics
that we get only one result for any experiment,
and that result is an eigenvalue of the
measurement operator, randomly selected from the
possible eigenvalues.

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation,
that we could get multiple results for a measurement,
but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it
cannot be derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

FWIW, all equations of the laws of physics are epistemic insofar as
they describe reality, but don't exist as physical entities in
spacetime. If you kick them, they don't kick back (to paraphrase the
Late Vic Stenger). AG

Equations are not in question. It's the things referred to in the
equations and laws, e.g. the wave function, entropy, energy,...

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 9:07:08 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/13/2024 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

MWI's claim to fame is that applying the Shroedinger equation to the
instrument and environment in addition to the system of study produces an
orthogonal world for each measured outcome. However this is done treating
the instrument and environment as macroscopic objects ignoring the details
how the instrument interacts with the system, using only a schematic
interaction. That other analyses are possible is shown by the retro-causal
interpretation.

Brent

I'm not interested in MW for the reasons I explained above. The Many Worlds
of the MWI are just *way too many*, and based on a claim I see as false,
and *not* implied by S's equation, which is just epistemic with frequentist
probability assumed. What I am interested in is the mystery you claim
exists, implied by Bell experiments. BTW, I looked, but can't find the link
to a video which featured Roger Penrose and another physicist (whose name I
cannot recall) who claimed, based on Bell experiments, that we are on the
verge of an historical advance in our concept of space. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/13/2024 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce
Kellett wrote:

The fact that a theory does not claim to explain
consciousness does not mean that it cannot be useful,
or explain other things within its domain of
application. The problem we have is that many-worlds
theory does not actually explain anything that does
not already have a simpler explanation in terms of
some other, less extravagant, theory. For example,
many-worlds theory does not explain why we get only
one result on any measurement, and it does not explain
why we get the observed result rather than any other.
This observed fact is easily explained in standard
quantum mechanics as the result of a stochastic
process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that we
get only one result for any experiment, and that
result is an eigenvalue of the measurement operator,
randomly selected from the possible eigenvalues.

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we
could get multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom
it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it
cannot be derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

Another observational fact which is not an axiom, and key to the MW
illusion, is the assumption, allegedly from S's equation, that every
possible outcome must be realized in some world. A hugely simpler
assumption (not an axiom) is the frequentist interpretation of
probability; namely, if an experiment is repeated a large number of
times, the measurement probabilities calculated using the wf, will be
realized arbitarily closely. AG
MWI's claim to fame is that applying the Shroedinger equation to the
instrument and environment in addition to the system of study produces
an orthogonal world for each measured outcome. However this is done
treating the instrument and environment as macroscopic objects ignoring
the details how the instrument interacts with the system, using only a
schematic interaction. That other analyses are possible is shown by the
retro-causal interpretation.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Brent.

For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains (implied by Bell
experiments) despite the fact that QM correctly predicts the results of
every experiment, I'd like your opinion or speculation of the nature or
content of this mystery. TY, AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 7:25:55 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the theory.

Bruce

It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-13 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> The fact that a theory does not claim to explain consciousness does not
> mean that it cannot be useful, or explain other things within its domain of
> application. The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not
> actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation
> in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds
> theory does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement, and
> it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any other.
> This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics as the
> result of a stochastic process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that
> we get only one result for any experiment, and that result is an eigenvalue
> of the measurement operator, randomly selected from the possible
> eigenvalues.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
> multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG
>

If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be
derived from anything else in the 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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQB7cYwsZiRS-P_h5GDcqNp0h843dvUfqCGvkAwC2CN8g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/13/2024 4:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:30 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

*>> And for every event, for every point in space and forevery
instant in time, the square of the absolute value of the
quantum wave *

You keep forgetting that the wave-function exists in an infinite
dimensional vector space. NOT 3space. Doesn't sound so "real" then
does it?

*has a precise number, and it's a number that has profound
physical significance. That sure sounds physically real to me! *

/> Probability is not an entity!/

*The dictionary on my Mac saysan entity is "/A thing with
distinct//and independent existence/" and the definition of a thing is
"**/an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a
specific name to/**". Probability certainly exists, *
Your dictionary said "*/independent/* existence". There are several
kinds of probability. All the ones in QM are calculated values
dependent on humans and their knowledge or they are notional limits of
frequencies in observations.*

*
*and it has a distinct and independent existence. It's true that you
can't touch probability, but you can't touch entropy either, but both
are "things" that exist in the physical world.

*
I don't think so. They only exist in our descriptions of the physical
world. Do you think "physical" exists?*

/> Depending on the initial conditions, the wave function might
well be identically zero at most spacetime points.
/

*S**ure, but I don't see your point. At some places and at some times
the needle on your Fahrenheit thermometer is pointing at zero and you
observe it pointing at zero, and at other places and other times it's
pointing at 90 and you see it pointing at 90. Zero is not nothing, it
is something because being not zero is different from being zero; if
that wasn't true computers wouldn't work. *

*>> the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't
need to explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to
explain what consciousness is, because neither has anything to
do with it.*

*"The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a
change."

"but not all changes are a measurement; this is because "measurement"
implies that a consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved"

*So JKC claims that consciousness has nothing to do with measurement,
but measurement implies consciousness is involved and that measurement
is simply a change.

Brent*

/> So the Many-worlds theory is merely a fantasy, about nothing at
all./

*So your claim is that any physical theory that does not explain
consciousness, and that means every single physical theory discovered
since Newton's day, is merely a fantasy and is about nothing at all. I
respectfully disagree. *

*
*
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
*

.,/

--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2zOAbhJxGv3QNjnru4AzNVAGn-UNOgTeQuWXdKAsAp6Q%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:12 PM John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:30 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

*>> And for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a precise
number, and it's a number that has profound physical significance. That
sure sounds physically real to me! *

*> Probability is not an entity!*

*The dictionary on my Mac says an entity is "A thing with distinct and
independent existence" and the definition of a thing is "**an object that
one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to**".
Probability certainly exists, and it has a distinct and independent
existence. It's true that you can't touch probability, but you can't touch
entropy either, but both are "things" that exist in the physical world. *

No. They are not 'things that exist in the physical world.' They are
mathematical variables that can be calculated and applied to the
description of things. To confuse these variables with the things
themselves is to confuse the map with the territory.

*> Depending on the initial conditions, the wave function might well be
identically zero at most spacetime points.*

*S**ure, but I don't see your point. At some places and at some times the
needle on your Fahrenheit thermometer is pointing at zero and you observe
it pointing at zero, and at other places and other times it's pointing at
90 and you see it pointing at 90. Zero is not nothing, it is something
because being not zero is different from being zero; if that wasn't true
computers wouldn't work.*

*>> the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't need to
explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain what
consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it.*

*> So the Many-worlds theory is merely a fantasy, about nothing at all.*

*So your claim is that any physical theory that does not explain
consciousness, and that means every single physical theory discovered since
Newton's day, is merely a fantasy and is about nothing at all. I
respectfully disagree.*

Bruce

It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get
multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/13/2024 3:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:13 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

>///I'd heard that the //*many* of "Many Worlds" referred to the
numerosity of possible *measurement* results. Is that not right?/

*Yes that would be a correct statement because, as I said before,
every measurement is a change but not every change is a measurement.
In one world the needle on your voltmeter is pointing to 3 and you
observe it pointing to 3, and in another world the needle on your
voltmeter is pointing to 4 and you observe it pointing to 4. And you
are an intelligent agent, perhaps even a conscious one, therefore you
are capable of making a measurement. *

*I've noticed that you have not mentioned what your favorite quantum
interpretation is, nor has Bruce Kellett, but if I were to guess I
would say both of you are fans of the Shut Up And Calculate (a.k.a.
Copenhagen) quantum interpretation. Am I correct? *

No. First, "Shut up and calculate" is a caricature of the "Copenhagen"
interpretation which was never even well defined. The Neo-Copenhagen
interpretation which says decoherence somehow selects which probability
is realized seems a viable possibility that needs more research to fill out.

Second, Bruce can speak for him self, but I see short comings in all the
interpretations. Maybe least in the epistemic interpretation, although
the PBR theorem purports to show it's inconsistent with standard QM.
Anyway we'd like our theories to represent objective reality, not just
ideas about it.

There's also superdeterminism and retro-causality.

It bothers me to see serious people become partisan advocates for
scientific positions; sweeping the problems of their faith under the rug
and never mentioning the alternatives.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-13 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:26 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:13 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> > *I'd heard that the **many of "Many Worlds" referred to the numerosity
>> of possible measurement results.  Is that not right?*
>
>
> *Yes that would be a correct statement because, as I said before, every
> measurement is a change but not every change is a measurement.  In one
> world the needle on your voltmeter is pointing to 3 and you observe it
> pointing to 3, and in another world  the needle on your voltmeter is
> pointing to 4 and you observe it pointing to 4. And you are an intelligent
> agent, perhaps even a conscious one, therefore you are capable of making a
> measurement. *
>
> *I've noticed that you have not mentioned what your favorite quantum
> interpretation is, nor has Bruce Kellett, but if I were to guess I would
> say both of you are fans of the Shut Up And Calculate (a.k.a. Copenhagen)
> quantum interpretation. Am I correct? *
>

No.

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLShXvOtif6dC_eh0m%2B9%2BYnHMUAi_J0Dj_c8_HwTpODZmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-13 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:12 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:30 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>> And for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
>>> time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a precise
>>> number, and it's a number that has profound physical significance. That
>>> sure sounds physically real to me! *
>>>
>>
>> *> Probability is not an entity!*
>>
>
> *The dictionary on my Mac says an entity is "A thing with distinct and
> independent existence" and the definition of a thing is "**an object that
> one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to**".
> Probability certainly exists, and it has a distinct and independent
> existence. It's true that you can't touch probability, but you can't touch
> entropy either, but both are "things" that exist in the physical world. *
>

No. They are not 'things that exist in the physical world.' They are
mathematical variables that can be calculated and applied to the
description of things. To confuse these variables with the things
themselves is to confuse the map with the territory.

>> *> Depending on the initial conditions, the wave function might well be
>> identically zero at most spacetime points.*
>>
>
> *S**ure, but I don't see your point. At some places and at some times the
> needle on your Fahrenheit thermometer is pointing at zero and you observe
> it pointing at zero, and at other places and other times it's pointing at
> 90 and you see it pointing at 90. Zero is not nothing, it is something
> because being not zero is different from being zero; if that wasn't true
> computers wouldn't work.*
>
>>
> *>> the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't need to
>>> explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain what
>>> consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it.*
>>>
>>
>> *> So the Many-worlds theory is merely a fantasy, about nothing at all.*
>>
>
> *So your claim is that any physical theory that does not explain
> consciousness, and that means every single physical theory discovered since
> Newton's day, is merely a fantasy and is about nothing at all. I
> respectfully disagree.*
>

The fact that a theory does not claim to explain consciousness does not
mean that it cannot be useful, or explain other things within its domain of
application. The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not
actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation
in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds
theory does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement, and
it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any other.
This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics as the
result of a stochastic process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that
we get only one result for any experiment, and that result is an eigenvalue
of the measurement operator, randomly selected from the possible
eigenvalues.

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQkgzg%3Du3q9EzdKB40NODn4Ath43hwS8fj9vfH_rRQ-6w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-13 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:30 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>> And for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
>> time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a precise
>> number, and it's a number that has profound physical significance. That
>> sure sounds physically real to me! *
>>
>
> *> Probability is not an entity!*
>

*The dictionary on my Mac says an entity is "A thing with distinct and
independent existence" and the definition of a thing is "**an object that
one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to**".
Probability certainly exists, and it has a distinct and independent
existence. It's true that you can't touch probability, but you can't touch
entropy either, but both are "things" that exist in the physical world. *

>
> *> Depending on the initial conditions, the wave function might well be
> identically zero at most spacetime points.*
>

*S**ure, but I don't see your point. At some places and at some times the
needle on your Fahrenheit thermometer is pointing at zero and you observe
it pointing at zero, and at other places and other times it's pointing at
90 and you see it pointing at 90. Zero is not nothing, it is something
because being not zero is different from being zero; if that wasn't true
computers wouldn't work. *

>
*>> the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't need to
>> explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain what
>> consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it.*
>>
>
> *> So the Many-worlds theory is merely a fantasy, about nothing at all.*
>

*So your claim is that any physical theory that does not explain
consciousness, and that means every single physical theory discovered since
Newton's day, is merely a fantasy and is about nothing at all. I
respectfully disagree.  *

*  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
.,/

>
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2zOAbhJxGv3QNjnru4AzNVAGn-UNOgTeQuWXdKAsAp6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-13 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:13 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> *I'd heard that the **many of "Many Worlds" referred to the numerosity of
> possible measurement results.  Is that not right?*

*Yes that would be a correct statement because, as I said before, every
measurement is a change but not every change is a measurement.  In one
world the needle on your voltmeter is pointing to 3 and you observe it
pointing to 3, and in another world  the needle on your voltmeter is
pointing to 4 and you observe it pointing to 4. And you are an intelligent
agent, perhaps even a conscious one, therefore you are capable of making a
measurement. *

*I've noticed that you have not mentioned what your favorite quantum
interpretation is, nor has Bruce Kellett, but if I were to guess I would
say both of you are fans of the Shut Up And Calculate (a.k.a. Copenhagen)
quantum interpretation. Am I correct?  *

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
qcn

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2beEjL5m2AGuuwyJCYsu_SoLqeL_8hJEoL%3DiFi-A5gjA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/12/2024 5:19 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:28 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

/>>> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the
wave function. For example, if it is not real but only
epistemic, then there is no need for a physical collapse./

*>> If something works, and in this caseworks really really
well,then it is not at all clear to me why you should assume
that the thing that works so well is not real. And in that
context I'm not even sure what you mean by "real". *

/> Physically real, i.e. existing as an entity in time and space./

*And for every event, for every point in space and forevery instant in
time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a
precise number, and it's a number that has profound physical
significance. That sure sounds physically real to me!

*
You mean for every point in 12 dimensional configuration space for those
dozen eggs?

/> Newton's equations of motion enable us to calculate the future
trajectories of billiard balls. The equations themselves say
nothing whatsoever about whether or not such objects as billiard
balls exist as physical objects./

*I would say that if something is different in different points in
space and it is different in different instancesin time, and there is
a supremely important connection between it and everything else in the
observable universe, **then that thing is a physical object; and the
quantum wave function does exactly that. *
*OR*..it's just a description of what you happen to know about the dozen
eggs and what they would do it that's true.

*And if that's not good enough to be a physical object then physical
objects simply do not exist.

Yep, that's not good enough.

/> the equation itself does not say what a "measurement" is,/

*True,but the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't
need to explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain
what consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it.*
I'd heard that the /*many*/ of "Many Worlds" referred to the numerosity
of possible /*measurement*/ results. Is that not right?

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-12 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:20 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:28 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function.
 For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need
 for a physical collapse.*

>>>
>>> *>> If something works, and in this case works really really well, then
>>> it is not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that
>>> works so well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you
>>> mean by "real". *
>>>
>>
>> *> Physically real, i.e. existing as an entity in time and space.*
>>
>
> *And for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
> time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a precise
> number, and it's a number that has profound physical significance. That
> sure sounds physically real to me! *
>

Probability is not an entity! Depending on the initial conditions, the wave
function might well be identically zero at most spacetime points.

*> Newton's equations of motion enable us to calculate the future
>> trajectories of billiard balls. The equations themselves say nothing
>> whatsoever about whether or not such objects as billiard balls exist as
>> physical objects.*
>>
>
> *I would say that if something is different in different points in space
> and it is different in different instances in time, and there is a
> supremely important connection between it and everything else in the
> observable universe, **then that thing is a physical object; and the
> quantum wave function does exactly that. And if that's not good enough to
> be a physical object then physical objects simply do not exist. *
>

You are talking nonsense.

* > the equation itself does not say what a "measurement" is,*
>>
>
> *True, but the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't need
> to explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain what
> consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it.*
>

So the Many-worlds theory is merely a fantasy, about nothing at all.

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT8bX90j5pUV%2Bqy-E2R4shDzkpsr4w0fjhOQj0sXYmxCw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:28 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>>> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function.
>>> For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need
>>> for a physical collapse.*
>>>
>>
>> *>> If something works, and in this case works really really well, then
>> it is not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that
>> works so well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you
>> mean by "real". *
>>
>
> *> Physically real, i.e. existing as an entity in time and space.*
>

*And for every event, for every point in space and for every instant in
time, the square of the absolute value of the quantum wave has a precise
number, and it's a number that has profound physical significance. That
sure sounds physically real to me!  *

*> Newton's equations of motion enable us to calculate the future
> trajectories of billiard balls. The equations themselves say nothing
> whatsoever about whether or not such objects as billiard balls exist as
> physical objects.*
>

*I would say that if something is different in different points in space
and it is different in different instances in time, and there is a
supremely important connection between it and everything else in the
observable universe, **then that thing is a physical object; and the
quantum wave function does exactly that. And if that's not good enough to
be a physical object then physical objects simply do not exist.  *

* > the equation itself does not say what a "measurement" is,*
>

*True, but the only reason I'm a Many Worlds fan is that it doesn't need to
explain what a measurement is, nor does it have to explain what
consciousness is, because neither has anything to do with it. *
*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
a2d

>
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv35m9bSeOczQexMEaj-%2BxvC1yvnZR_0rXV1DGzypd2-LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-12 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 9:40 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any
>>> better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical
>>> observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be
>>> the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I
>>> remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead
>>> they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means
>>> what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function
>>> collapsing.*
>>>
>>
>> *> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function.
>> For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need
>> for a physical collapse.*
>>
>
> *If something works, and in this case works really really well, then it is
> not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that works so
> well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by
> "real". *
>

Physically real,* i.e.* existing as an entity in time and space.

*> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a
>> physically real object*
>>
>
> *True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard ball does
> not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object either, therefore
> I would conclude that the quantum wave function is as real or unreal as a
> billiard ball.*
>

Newton's equations of motion enable us to calculate the future trajectories
of billiard balls. The equations themselves say nothing whatsoever about
whether or not such objects as billiard balls exist as physical objects. It
is the same with Schrodinger's equation -- it enables us to calculate
probabilities, but says nothing at all about whether the wave function, or
atoms and the like, exist as independent physical objects. You can make
assumptions about these things, but then, they are just assumptions..

*> **the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating
>> the evolution of probabilities*
>>
>
> *OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you should
> stop using it to calculate things after a "measurement" (whatever that ill
> defined word is supposed to mean) is made?*
>

Because the equation itself does not say what a "measurement" is, or what
happens after one is made. Anything you might suppose about "measurement",
and how objects behave after "measurement", are just assumptions on your
part -- with no experimental basis.

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTNQUM0K1cigoudxvryn6tcx_xYcPqprzLK1ekG13U27A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/12/2024 4:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled
the experimenters. AG*

*I call B.S. on that. Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what
they expected. Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden
variable theories were right. What's your reference? *

*So Bell was wrong in his expectations because he didn't believe in QM? Is
that your claim now? More important, since you previously acknowledged that
some mystery remains despite what some vector in Hilbert space indicates,
what exactly is the content of that mystery? TY, AG *

*So you dodged the demand for a reference, from which I conclude you made
it up. Brent*

*And now you're a demonstrated BS artist. I asked you a simple question
which you refuse to answer. Listen carefully; what I wrote was my
IMPRESSION from discussions of Bell experiments, not something I read in a
reference article. And if you read JC on this thread, he has the SAME
impression, and I asked him the same question. I expect he won't dodge the
question. AG*

*To be more specific, I recently viewed a colloquium where Roger Penrose
was a participate along with several other physicists in which advanced
topics were discussed. One participant, whose name I cannot recall, claimed
that because of Bell experiment results, we are on the verge of a major
breakthough in our understanding of space. I lost the link when I had a
problem with my computer. If I can find it, I'll post it. AG *

Re: Spin Superposition



On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 3:52:11 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*> I'd say postulating the existence of un-realized world's if a pretty 
severe violation of Occam's Razaor.*


*I would certainly agree with you about that, and if Many Worlds just 
assumed that all those worlds existed then the idea would be idiotic, 
fortunately it makes no such postulate. *
* J**ohn K Clark  *


*But MW does assume that every possible outcome must be realized in some 
world, and S's equation does not require this.  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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b1ca8fb4-907a-4fbb-9e01-97be2b2a770fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> *> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each
>>> one causes the world to split.*
>>
>>
>> *Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about?*
>
>

*> How the Born rule gets realized.  You say it has something to do with
> measurement, but that is "simply change".*
>

*NO, that is exactly what I did NOT say, or if I did it was the written
equivalent of a fart! I said the way the Born rule gets realized has
something to do with change, not necessarily a measurement. All
measurements involve a change, but not all changes are a measurement; this
is because "measurement" implies that a consciousness, or at least an
intelligence, is involved; but "change" implies no such thing. *

*>Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable. *

*Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better
in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical
observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be
the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I
remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead
they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means
what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function
collapsing.   *

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
  ses

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0cHxDyHcM3V-eB7a5U3dQmGmhDT6F-%3DJu4BeqH9t0DVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*> I'd say postulating the existence of un-realized world's if a pretty
> severe violation of Occam's Razaor.*

*I would certainly agree with you about that, and if Many Worlds just
assumed that all those worlds existed then the idea would be idiotic,
fortunately it makes no such postulate. *
* J**ohn K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
kwc

>
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0d%2B6VQ7dH%2B-%3D8%3DOrBJYhkWQR36B99qSJUx00Apd%3D55NQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/12/2024 2:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett  
wrote:


*>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever
it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum
interpretations produce identical observable results then
Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one
that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many
Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are _NOT_
an assumption, instead they are a _CONSEQUENCE_ of simply
assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and
the equation says _NOTHING_ about a wave function collapsing.*


/> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave
function. For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then
there is no need for a physical collapse./


*If something works, and in this caseworks really really well,then it 
is not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that 
works so well is not real. *
It works really really well as an epistemic theory.  It doesn't work 
work well as an ontologic theory because it predicts bazillions of 
unobservable worlds.


Brent


*And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by "real". *

/> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is
a physically real object/


*True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard 
balldoes not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object 
either, therefore I would conclude that the quantum wave function is 
as real or unreal as a billiard ball. *


/> //the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for
calculating the evolution of probabilities/


*OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you 
should stop using it to calculate thingsafter a "measurement" 
(whatever that ill defined word is supposed to mean) is made? *

*
*
*J**ohn K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
***

rmw


--
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tn_9A4Pn6aKxoqkF_X9AN8WgMM5ysMQp5phZ_0z%2B_Jw%40mail.gmail.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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/52b8ef3d-314b-44da-bbfb-60b6e5953c95%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/12/2024 2:05 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

/> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not
more,**and each one causes the world to split./

*Exactly! So I forget, what are we arguing about?*

/> How the Born rule gets realized. You say it has something to
do with measurement, but that is "simply change"./

*NO, that is exactly what I did _NOT_ say, or if I did it was the
written equivalent of a fart! I said the way the Born rule gets
realized has something to do with _change_, not necessarily a
measurement. All measurements involve a change, *

*"**Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change." JKC*

*but not all changes are a measurement; this is because "measurement"
implies that a consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is
involved; but "change" implies no such thing. *

/>Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable. /

*Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any
better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce
identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the
preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And
that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many
worlds are _NOT_ an assumption, instead they are a _CONSEQUENCE_ of
simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and
the equation says _NOTHING_ about a wave function collapsing. *
What you are "reminding" me of is just your interpretation of
Schroedinger's equation. I think it just says some possibility
realizations are more probable than others. It doesn't say anything
about world's splitting either. I'd say postulating the existence of
un-realized world's if a pretty severe violation of Occam's Razaor.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any
>> better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical
>> observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be
>> the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I
>> remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead
>> they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means
>> what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function
>> collapsing.*
>>
>
> *> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. For
> example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need for a
> physical collapse.*
>

*If something works, and in this case works really really well, then it is
not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that works so
well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by
"real". *

*> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a
> physically real object*
>

*True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard ball does
not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object either, therefore
I would conclude that the quantum wave function is as real or unreal as a
billiard ball.   *

*> **the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating
> the evolution of probabilities*
>

*OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you should
stop using it to calculate things after a "measurement" (whatever that ill
defined word is supposed to mean) is made? *

* J**ohn K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
rmw

>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tn_9A4Pn6aKxoqkF_X9AN8WgMM5ysMQp5phZ_0z%2B_Jw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-12 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 9:06 AM John Clark  wrote:

> *Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better
> in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical
> observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be
> the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I
> remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead
> they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means
> what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function
> collapsing.*
>

Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. For
example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need for a
physical collapse. The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave
function is a physically real object -- that is an additional assumption in
the Many-worlds interpretation. If one does not make that assumption, the
the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating the
evolution of probabilities, and there are no extra worlds

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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRsXqLpDe%2BqZkC3avRutdK3PkVT9nZ%2B4LcmLK7me_3qWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/12/2024 4:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled
the experimenters. AG*

*I call B.S. on that. Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what
they expected. Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden
variable theories were right. What's your reference? *

*So you dodged the demand for a reference, from which I conclude you made
it up. Brent*

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/12/2024 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:

*Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary
access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular
axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have
chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange,
especially because in most quantum interpretations the
definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The
one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a
change.*

/>No,/

*Yes!*

/> it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to
split into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds
have "weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule*,*/

*Please name a change that is _NOT_"very special", a change in which 
Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a 
probability of occurrence, even in principle.

*
Why?  Do you suppose that because many other formulations would also be 
/very special/, that would excuse your formulation that measurement is 
/simply a change/.  It is not special at all in the sense that it is not 
specific.  It includes no specification that realizes the Born rule nor 
process for realizing it either via "weights" or "branch counting".

**

>/everything in each world is the same except things that depend on
the measurement result./*//*

*The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that 
don't depend on measurement results will not change because if they 
did then they would depend on measurement results.*
The key word in the above is "the" which is absent between "on" and 
"measurement".

**

> /"measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)/

*Exactly, but . of measurementyou just said "it's a very special 
kind of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you 
about putting "measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the 
only quantum Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning. *

/> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not
more,**and each one causes the world to split./

*Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about?
*
How the Born rule gets realized.  You say it has something to do with 
measurement, but that is "simply change".

/> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world
splits instantaneously or at the speed of light./

*Many Worlds makes no prediction *
Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable.  May be that's 
why it's so successful, along with other religions.

*about that because it makes no observable difference, you are free to 
assume that the split is instantaneous or that it propagates at the 
speed of light. *

/> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable
theories were right/

*Bell thought _NON-LOCAL_ hidden variable theories were right, that's 
why he was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and 
deterministic but non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same 
reason that Roger Penrose does, they both thought that the very idea 
of the universe splitting is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth 
considering; but they both forgot that being very strange and being 
logically self-contradictory are not the same thing. I think if Many 
Worlds is untrue then something even stranger is.

*
Would it be stranger if, among possibilities with non-zero 
probabilities, one occurred and other's didn't?

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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d6c28fb-8ddf-414c-91ba-9af00a04aff2%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition





On 11/12/2024 4:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



*When they started doing Bell experiments, around
1970, the results puzzled the experimenters. AG*


*I call B.S. on that.  Anybody who believed QM was correct got
exactly what they expected.  Bell thought his experiment would
prove that hidden variable theories were right.  What's your
reference?
*

*
*
*So Bell was wrong in his expectations because he didn't believe in 
QM? Is that your claim now? More important, since you previously 
acknowledged that some mystery remains despite what some vector in 
Hilbert space indicates, what exactly is the content of that mystery? 
TY, AG

*
*So you dodged the demand for a reference, from which I conclude you 
made it up.


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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f82c301d-c703-4891-bbfa-968bd8e937cf%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 8:40:23 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:22 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>> I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. *

> *TY, but you didn't explictly prove it, and that's why I didn't get it.
It's in my to-do list. AG*

*I proved that if the [COS (X)]^2 rule is true, and it's been tested for
centuries and has been right every time, and if local hidden variables are
the source of quantum weirdness *
*then it's not just strange but LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Bell's Inequality
to be violated. This would still be true even if tomorrow somebody finds a
theory that was completely different from quantum mechanics but can still
do everything quantum mechanics can do, and in addition do things that
quantum mechanics can NOT do, such as explain what happens at the center of
a Black Hole or at the first instance of the Big Bang; this is because this
wonderful new theory would still have to be compatible with the **[COS
(X)]^2 rule because experiment demands it, and experiment is king. *

*The facts are that Bell's Inequality IS violated, therefore local hidden
variables cannot be the source of quantum weirdness. *

*I've asked this of Brent and awaiting his reply; what EXACTLY is weird?
TY, AG *

*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
nhv

Re: Spin Superposition

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:22 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*>> I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. *

> >  *TY,  but you didn't explictly prove it, and that's why I didn't get
> it. It's in my to-do list. AG*

*I proved that if the [COS (X)]^2  rule is true, and it's been tested for
centuries and has been right every time, and if local hidden variables are
the source of quantum weirdness *
*then it's not just strange but LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Bell's Inequality
to be violated. This would still be true even if tomorrow somebody finds a
theory that was completely different from quantum mechanics but can still
do everything quantum mechanics can  do, and in addition do things that
quantum mechanics can NOT do, such as explain what happens at the center of
a Black Hole or at the first instance of the Big Bang; this is because this
wonderful new theory would still have to be compatible with the **[COS
(X)]^2 rule because experiment demands it, and experiment is king. *

*The facts are that Bell's Inequality IS violated, therefore local hidden
variables cannot be the source of quantum weirdness. *

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
nhv

>
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3jkcnvDM13eEYdUGCC7dmy-BmP5FtYavi_SBa6Oo0-Jg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:


*Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you
>> choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the
>> infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And
>> that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations
>> the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one
>> exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.*
>
>

*>No,*
>

*Yes!*

* > it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split into
> orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have "weights" or
> "numbers" implementing the Born rule,*
>

*Please name a change that is NOT "very special", a change in which
Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a
probability of occurrence, even in principle.*

>* everything in each world is the same except things that depend on the
> measurement result.*
>

*The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that don't
depend on measurement results will not change because if they did then they
would depend on measurement results. *


> > *"measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)*
>

*Exactly, but .  of measurement you just said "it's a very special kind
of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you about putting
"measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the only quantum
Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning.  *


> *> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each
> one causes the world to split.*
>

*Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about? *


*> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world splits
> instantaneously or at the speed of light.*
>

*Many Worlds makes no prediction about that because it makes no observable
difference, you are free to assume that the split is instantaneous or that
it propagates at the speed of light.  *


*> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories
> were right*


*Bell thought NON-LOCAL hidden variable theories were right, that's why he
was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and deterministic but
non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same reason that Roger Penrose
does, they both thought that the very idea of the universe splitting is
a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth considering; but they both forgot
that being very strange and being logically self-contradictory are not the
same thing. I think if Many Worlds is untrue then something even stranger
is. *

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
btw













>
>
>
> *To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many
> Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective
> collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that
> makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second
> extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that
> does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not.
> You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an
> inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some
> have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  *
>
> *S**o why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the
> 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of
> them logical. *
>
> *1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big.
> Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the
> universe is infinite. *
>
> *2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is
> similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving
> because I don't feel myself moving. *
>
>
>> *>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either
>> possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be
>> both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the
>> spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by
>> the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the
>> quantum wave demands that. *
>>
>>
>> *> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled
>> pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite
>> directions, far beyond causal distance.*
>>
>
> *You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing
> filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure
> spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are
> easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. *
>
> *If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1
> billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and
> set my polarizing filter to that ax

Re: Spin Superposition



On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 7:08:13 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has 
ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, 
maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the 
quantum wave before a measurement. *


*> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can 
be used. AG*


*It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to 
measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number 
of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very 
strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition 
of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many 
Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change. *

*To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is 
true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it 
doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it 
non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely 
complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does 
nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You 
have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent 
consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called 
pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  *

*S**o why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the 
1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of 
them logical. *

*1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely 
this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe 
is infinite. *

*2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is 
similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving 
because I don't feel myself moving. *
 

*>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. 
We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and 
deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an 
electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, 
instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands 
that. *


*> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled 
pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite 
directions, far beyond causal distance.*


*You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing 
filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure 
spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are 
easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. *

*If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 
billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and 
set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I 
choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% 
chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you 
arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. 
If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the 
other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for 
example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then 
there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; 
this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).*

* > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived*


*I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. *


 *TY,  but you didn't explictly prove it, and that's why I didn't get it. 
It's in my to-do list. AG*

*Basically I showed that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about 
polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange 
behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then 
certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that 
those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the 
quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   *

* > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances 
exceeding causality. *


*I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence 
can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence 
"information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph 
would still be impossible. *

  *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
*
eeb

t

-- 
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

Re: Spin Superposition

*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled
the experimenters. AG*

*I call B.S. on that. Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what
they expected. Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden
variable theories were right. What's your reference?*

*Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate explanation, but clearly
didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to close ostensible loopholes,*

*Those were loop holes that would have allowed communication between the
Alice and Bob measurements, whereas the QM prediction was independent of
communication. That's why it was important to close the loop holes. Brent *

* such as the usual causality by information being transferred at light
speed. But the puzzling result persisted, so they did experiments where a
pair of entangled entities were separated beyond causal distance. Why so
great efforts to close loopholes when they had those Hilbert space vectors,
which according to you, Brent, solves the problem "exactly"? What do you
know, that generations of experimenters had no knowledge of? AG*

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-11 Thread Brent Meeker





On 11/11/2024 5:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:




On 11/10/2024 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



Anything faster than light is instantaneous
in some reference frame; and goes in either
direction depending on the reference frame.
Which is a good reason for supposing no
information can be transmitted FoL.


Brent


That's one data point. Another is the fact that
neither member of an entangled pair has a
preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before
measurement, but it does have a spin because when
you measure it you never get zero spin.


and that when one of a pair is measured, the other
seems to know that value is regardless of the
perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one
spin state from the beginning, when the pair was
created.  They shared this value in Hilbert space.


Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.


So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the
hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on.  We get the
empirically correct prediction for every
experiment. It's just not a nursery story about
little balls.  Five hundred years ago someone with
your attitude would be demanding to know what
spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to
move.  You've just gotten used to mathematical
explanations involving little balls bouncing around
so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.  You
need to update your intuition.

Brent


Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous
because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly
predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?


Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your
illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the
currently most accurate known theory.


namely, that you actually know what's going, and no
less than *exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form.
In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer
the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert
space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms
to your prejudices.

Brent


Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments
which supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the
results since each pair of entangled entities shares a
common vector in Hilbert space? AG


I didn't say there's "no mystery".  I said we correctly
predict every experiment.  My point is that there is no more
mystery than in say Newtonian gravity.  When are you going to
answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that
eliminates the mystery?"  Little green men?

Brent


Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume
instantaneous action at a distance? What would I consider an
answer? I don't have an answer, and neither do you.

I don't need an answer. I have one.  You're the one who asked a
question but can't even say what an answer would be like.



Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone
knows what's going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.



If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed
article, and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a
surprise. AG

It did.  Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

Brent


*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results 
puzzled the experimenters. *
*I call B.S. on that.  Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly 
what they expected.  Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden 
variable theories were right.  What's your reference?

*
*Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate explanation, but 
clearly didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to close ostensible 
loopholes,*
*Those were loop holes that would have allowed communication between the 
Alice and Bob measurements, whereas the QM prediction was independent of 
communication.  That's why it was important to close the loop holes.


Brent
*
*such as the usual causality by information being transferred at light 
spee

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-11 Thread Brent Meeker





On 11/11/2024 6:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson  
wrote:


*>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pairof
electrons has _ONEAND ONLY ONE_ spin axisbefore a
measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair
has _EVERY_ axisspin that is not forbidden by the quantum
wavebefore a measurement. *


/> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any
axis can be used. AG/


*It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose 
to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite 
number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that 
seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations 
the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one 
exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.

*
No, it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split 
into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have 
"weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule*, *but everything in 
each world is the same except things that depend on the measurement 
result.**But since "measurement" is not special (it's just any 
interaction) there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not 
more,**and each one causes the world to split.  It's not clear whether 
these "measurements" propagate world splits instantaneously or at the 
speed of light.*


*Brent*

*


*To me it seems likeexperiments are virtually shouting thatMany Worlds 
is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse 
it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes 
it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second 
extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, 
that does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which 
one is not. You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds 
that are an inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equationand for that 
reason some have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory. *


*S**o why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since 
the 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, 
neither of them logical. *

*
*
*1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. 
Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that 
the universe is infinite. *

*
*
*2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is 
similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving 
because I don't feel myself moving. *


*>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either
possibility. We do know that _IF_ the world is realistic _THEN
_it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that
you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or
one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you
will always get 1/2[or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands
that. *


/> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an
entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and
sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance./


*You are correct except that they used correlated photons and 
polarizing filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets 
(which measure spin), they could've used electrons but they use 
photons because they are easier to deal with experimentally than 
electrons. *

*
*
*If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 
1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 
degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of 
which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it 
through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One 
billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your 
polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same 
axis I did there is a 100% chance the other in entangled photon will 
make it through your filter, but if for example the axis that you 
picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% 
chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because 
 [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).*


/> I don't YET _know_ how Bell's inequality is derived/


*I tried to explain that to youin a very long post.Basically I showed 
that if you use that [COS (X)]^2rule (see above) about polarized 
light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior 
in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain 
correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those 
correlations _ARE_ possible, therefore the strange behavior of the 
quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables. *


/> the Bell experiments suggest transference of i

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-11 Thread Alan Grayson

On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/10/2024 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous
action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an
answer, and neither do you.

I don't need an answer. I have one. You're the one who asked a question
but can't even say what an answer would be like.

Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's
going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.

If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and
so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG

It did. Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

Brent

*When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled
the experimenters. Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate
explanation, but clearly didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to
close ostensible loopholes, such as the usual causality by information
being transferred at light speed. But the puzzling result persisted, so
they did experiments where a pair of entangled entities were separated
beyond causal distance. Why so great efforts to close loopholes when they
had those Hilbert space vectors, which according to you, Brent, solves the
problem "exactly"? What do you know, that generations of experimenters had
no knowledge of? AG*

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-11 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has
> ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false,
> maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the
> quantum wave before a measurement. *
>
>
> *> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can
> be used. AG*
>

*It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to
measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number
of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very
strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition
of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many
Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change. *

*To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is
true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it
doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it
non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely
complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does
nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You
have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent
consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called
pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  *

*S**o why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the
1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of
them logical. *

*1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely
this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe
is infinite. *

*2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is
similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving
because I don't feel myself moving. *

> *>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility.
> We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and
> deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an
> electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave,
> instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands
> that. *
>
>
> *> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled
> pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite
> directions, far beyond causal distance.*
>

*You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing
filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure
spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are
easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. *

*If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1
billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and
set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I
choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50%
chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you
arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis.
If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the
other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for
example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then
there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter;
this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).*

* > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived*

*I tried to explain that to you in a very long post.  Basically I showed
that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light,
which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the
quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain
correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those
correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum
world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   *

* > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances
> exceeding causality. *

*I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence
can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence
"information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph
would still be impossible. *

  *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
eeb

t

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3cEFWmRk6rAvX06Ssa%3DpW6c3i8Pc2r6VeSaNf

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-11 Thread Alan Grayson

On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/10/2024 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous
action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an
answer, and neither do you.

I don't need an answer. I have one. You're the one who asked a question
but can't even say what an answer would be like.

*My initial thought is that pairs of entangled electrons might just appear
to be separated. Perhaps our concept of space is lacking in something
fundamental. But this is just my speculation. However, it seems simplistic
to sweep the problem under the rug, so to speak, and claim it's beena
solved. AG*

Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's
going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.

*Here you are quite mistaken; mistaking the map for the territory. Some
people think that calling the situation as "influencing" evades the core
issue, which is why the Bell experiments suggest transference of
information at distances exceeding causality. I've seen videos of
physicists struggling with this issue, and never heard of anyone other than
you, who claimed this problem has been solved. AG*

*BTW, my description of Bell experiments was deliberately simplistic since
I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived, although I am aware that
statistics are measured/gathered along three axes. AG*

If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and
so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG

It did. Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

*Where? I don't recall any links you claim to have offered. But like I
said, in this situation correct predictions aren't sufficient IMO, to
explain the results. AG *

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-10 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/10/2024 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in
some reference frame; and goes in either direction
depending on the reference frame. Which is a good
reason for supposing no information can be
transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither
member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin
before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before
measurement, but it does have a spin because when you
measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other
seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived
separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin
state from the beginning, when the pair was created.
They shared this value in Hilbert space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell
is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on. We get the
empirically correct prediction for every experiment.
It's just not a nursery story about little balls. Five
hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be
demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring
instrument needle to move. You've just gotten used to
mathematical explanations involving little balls
bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian
mathematics. You need to update your intuition.

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because
ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly
predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the
currently most accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less
than *exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact,
in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of
thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow
dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to
your prejudices.

Brent

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which
supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results
since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in
Hilbert space? AG

I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict
every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than
in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my
question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the
mystery?" Little green men?

Brent

Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous
action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an
answer, and neither do you.
I don't need an answer. I have one. You're the one who asked a question
but can't even say what an answer would be like.

Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows
what's going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.

If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article,
and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG

It did. Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/10/2024 3:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 5:46:00 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

* > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting
spin before measurement,*

*Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of
electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But
maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not
forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement. *

I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be
used. AG

*The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We
do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and
deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an
electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave,
instead you will always get 1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. *

CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair
of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite
directions, far beyond causal distance. Then, along the same axis, one of
the pair is measured as spin UP, and there's a correlation with the other
pair member measuring spin DN, so conservation of spin is satisfied. So
there's a mystery; how can the correlation exist when the electrons are far
beyond causal distance? Is this correct, or does Brent have the "exact"
solution and now awaits for his Nobel prize? AG

That's an oversimplified version, one that would be satisfied in classical
mechanics. Try reading up on the experiment.

Brent

Please cease your BS; it's unbecoming. Where is my description of Bell
experiments oversimplified? More important, experiments in classical
mechanics do not, and could not imply influences at distances exceeding
causality, other than in Newtonian gravity which we know is wrong. It's
just a good approximation for weak fields, such as within the solar
system.That's the core of the mystery -- apparent influences at distances
exceeding causality -- which you claimed is explained "exactly" by some
Hilbert space vector, or are you now backtracking on that claim? AG

Re: Spin Superposition

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous
action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an
answer, and neither do you. Getting the right number in an experiment
doesn't imply anyone knows what's going on. If someone did, it would have
appeared in some peer reviewed article, and so far you have been unable to
supply one. Not a surprise. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-10 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/10/2024 3:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 5:46:00 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a
preexisting spin before measurement,/

*Maybethat's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled
pairof electrons has _ONEAND ONLY ONE_ spin axisbefore a
measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has
_EVERY_ axisspin that is not forbidden by the quantum wavebefore a
measurement. *

I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis
can be used. AG

*The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either
possibility. We do know that _IF_ the world is realistic _THEN _it
cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will
never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because
that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get
1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. *

CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled
pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite
directions, far beyond causal distance. Then, along the same axis, one
of the pair is measured as spin UP, and there's a correlation with
the other pair member measuring spin DN, so conservation of spin is
satisfied. So there's a mystery; how can the correlation exist when
the electrons are far beyond causal distance? Is this correct, or does
Brent have the "exact" solution and now awaits for his Nobel prize? AG

That's an oversimplified version, one that would be satisfied in
classical mechanics. Try reading up on the experiment.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-10 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/10/2024 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 12:03:59 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 6:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent
Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John
Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/>>> Why do you characterize the
explanation of the possible
insufficiency of our concept of space,
a NON-local hidden variable?/

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light
years away and happened LESS than 4 years
ago and yet it still affected you then that
affect was non-local, because that's what
"non-local" means. Is such an affect
possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it?
Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

/> Your first sentence requires IMO, more
precision. Please re-write it./

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but
instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some
reference frame; and goes in either direction depending
on the reference frame. Which is a good reason for
supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither
member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before
measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement,
but it does have a spin because when you measure it you never
get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to
know that value is regardless of the perceived separation
distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state
from the beginning, when the pair was created. They shared
this value in Hilbert space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is
going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on. We get the empirically
correct prediction for every experiment. It's just not a
nursery story about little balls. Five hundred years ago
someone with your attitude would be demanding to know what
spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to move. You've
just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving
little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian
mathematics. You need to update your intuition.

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's
predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts
things Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently
most accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than
*exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this
context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking
some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of
the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your
prejudices.

Brent

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which
supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results since
each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in Hilbert
space? AG

I didn't say there's "no mystery". I said we correctly predict every
experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than in say
Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my question, "What
would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?" Little green men?

Brent.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 5:46:00 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

* > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting
spin before measurement,*

I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be
used. AG

*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
tmt

Re: Spin Superposition

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 1:46:57 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 12:03:59 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 6:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

The maximal that a vector in Hilbert space can offer, is the result of Bell
experiment measurements. It can't explain the mode of contact between pairs
of entangled particles separated beyond causal distance. Nor Have I ever
heard of any in-depth explanation of this result. You're the only one I
have heard of, who not only thinks the problem has been solved, but
moreover, thinks the problem is solved "exactly". So, pardon me when I
conclude you've seduced yourself into believing in an imaginary solution
which, AFAIK, is totally unsupported within the physics community. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 12:03:59 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 6:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-10 Thread John Clark

*I should've said you will always get 1/2 or -1/2.*

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 7:45 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
> *  > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting
>> spin before measurement,*
>>
>
>
> *Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of
> electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But
> maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not
> forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement. The violation of Bell's
> Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world
> is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know
> that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one
> because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get
> 1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. *
>
>   *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> *
> tmt
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LaXfYLjqeCs9KYmpM5S8hRoUwms2L3O9zUTDNtxnUQw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-10 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*  > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting
> spin before measurement,*
>

*Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of
electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But
maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not
forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement. The violation of Bell's
Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world
is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know
that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one
because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get
1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. *

  *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
tmt

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Hh%2B9kiOmQ5f%2Bu-bOc%3DMEAZv36dvcaDpWvAQrFXauU2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-09 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/9/2024 6:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark
wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/>>> Why do you characterize the explanation
of the possible insufficiency of our concept
of space, a NON-local hidden variable?/

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years
away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet
it still affected you then that affect was
non-local, because that's what "non-local"
means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum
Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were
betting I would bet not.*

/> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision.
Please re-write it./

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but
instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference
frame; and goes in either direction depending on the
reference frame. Which is a good reason for supposing no
information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of
an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it
does have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know
that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from
the beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value
in Hilbert space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going
on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on. We get the empirically
correct prediction for every experiment. It's just not a nursery
story about little balls. Five hundred years ago someone with
your attitude would be demanding to know what spirit caused the
measuring instrument needle to move. You've just gotten used to
mathematical explanations involving little balls bouncing around
so you don't question Newtonian mathematics. You need to update
your intuition.

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's
predict it?
Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things
Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;
No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most
accurate known theory.
namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than
*exactly*? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context
you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference
to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26fac391-a863-4158-aa32-7e3942ad891en%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 7:40:20 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?
Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion; namely, that
you actually know what's going, and no less than *exactly*? This is hubris
in its purist form. In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer
the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow
dispositive of the mystery. AG

What IMO you are obtuse to, is the likely fact that Bell experiments with
entangled pairs might indicate an as yet unknown property of space. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value
is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space.

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-09 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of
the possible insufficiency of our concept of
space, a NON-local hidden variable?/

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away
and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still
affected you then that affect was non-local, because
that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect
possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody
knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.*

/> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision.
Please re-write it./

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous.
Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference
frame; and goes in either direction depending on the reference
frame. Which is a good reason for supposing no information can be
transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,
I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does
have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.
and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that
value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.
The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the
beginning, when the pair was created. They shared this value in Hilbert
space. Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG
We do know exactly what's going on. We get the empirically correct
prediction for every experiment. It's just not a nursery story about
little balls. Five hundred years ago someone with your attitude would
be demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring instrument needle
to move. You've just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving
little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian
mathematics. You need to update your intuition.

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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34474212-158b-4f60-8c35-6dd6dfcaec11n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an
entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement, and that when one
of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value is regardless of
the perceived separation distance. So it's reasonable to say we don't know
what the hell is going on. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-09 Thread Brent Meeker





On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:


/>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the
possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a
NON-local hidden variable?/


*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and
happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected
you then that affect was non-local, because that's what
"non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were
betting I would bet not.*


/> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please
re-write it./


*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?


Obviously.


You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. 
Entangled particles are non-separable. AG
Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and 
goes in either direction depending on the reference frame. Which is a 
good reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.


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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/99a5f77a-73a4-414d-806c-c95a4e22a8b6%40gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

You seem to be saying that non-local means one feels the effect of an event
before it occurred. That's how it reads. AG

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
v0o

*> Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows
what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum
mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of
entangled particles can send information to its partner** [faster than
light] *

*Maybe. If somebody can prove that is true then we will know that Quantum
Mechanics is non-local, and the violation of Bell's Inequality does not
rule out non-local hidden variables, it only rules out local hidden
variables. *

Re: Spin Superposition

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

*> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*

*No.*

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled
particles are non-separable. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-09 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:


*>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency
> of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*
>
>
> *>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than
> 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
> because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
> Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
> bet not.*
>
>
> *> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.*
>

*No.*


> >Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?
>

Obviously.

 *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
v0o





>
> q
>
>
> *> Two observers can't send information to each other because neither
> knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum
> mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of
> entangled particles can send information to its partner** [faster than
> light] *
>
>
> *Maybe. If somebody can prove that is true then we will know that Quantum
> Mechanics is non-local, and the violation of Bell's Inequality does not
> rule out non-local hidden variables, it only rules out local hidden
> variables.  *
>
>
>

-- 
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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0cRTeb4hob2wnzS%2BNt79BJpTmmuxYrPSQ7UHqCHx52mw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread Alan Grayson

On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 5:46:16 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:54 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of
our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*

*Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4
years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not.*

Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it. Are
you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom? TY, AG

My opinion, FWIW, is that we have a major flaw or insufficiency in our
concept of space, noting that for photons, all distances shrink to zero. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread Alan Grayson



On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 2:38:36 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

And what would you fancy as an "underlying physicality"?

Brent


Since you're comfortable wirh your explanation of entangled particles -- an 
appleal to vectors in a Hilbert space -- I see no reason to disturb your 
certainty. 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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5569249-da3b-496a-b7f0-a70784a2c6c1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:54 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of
> our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?*


*Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4
years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local,
because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does
Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would
bet not. *
* John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
*
qmc








>
>
> *> Two observers can't send information to each other because neither
> knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum
> mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of
> entangled particles can send information to its partner** [faster than
> light] *
>
>
> *Maybe. If somebody can prove that is true then we will know that Quantum
> Mechanics is non-local, and the violation of Bell's Inequality does not
> rule out non-local hidden variables, it only rules out local hidden
> variables.  *
>
>
> My opinion, FWIW, is that we have a major flaw or insufficiency in our
> concept of space, noting that for photons, all distances shrink to zero. 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 view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Fp8bB8gX60jxk_c1Sx0uggyCiLP8rwrz0yEP5ivV%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread Brent Meeker


And what would you fancy as an "underlying physicality"?

Brent


On 11/8/2024 1:14 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
The map. Ultimately we're seeking the physicality underlying the 
correlations. AG


On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 1:49:48 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:




On 11/7/2024 8:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 7:12:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:




On 11/7/2024 5:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent
Meeker wrote:




On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent
Meeker wrote:




On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM
UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson
 wrote:

/> An effect between entangled pairs but
no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG/


*It's weird but it does not produce a logical
contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum
entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get
in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the
speed of light for a little over four years to
Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start
flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth.
We both write down a record of all the heads
and tails we got and both of us conclude that
the sequences we got are perfectly random.
Then you get back in your spaceship and four
years later you're back home. And now that
you're back we compare our lists of "random"
coin flips and we find that the two sequences
are identical, we both got the same "random"
sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed
anything was strange until you got back, and
that took over four years because Alpha
Centauriis four light years away. If we try to
use our coins discern a message by Morse code
with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a
dash it won't work because your coin will only
come up the way you want it to 50% of the
time.You could of course force your coin to
come up heads or tails, but if you did that
you would destroy the quantum entanglement
because it is very delicate, and then you
would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *


Two observers can't send information to each other
because neither knows what will come up in a coin
flip if the outcome is modeled quantum
mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but
each element of a pair of entangled particles can
send information to its partner, since if it
couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG

First of all you need to realize that "entangled
particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't
entangled.  Some property of the particles is
entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So
in Hilbert space, instead of there being two
different vector components for the spin of A and
the spin of B, there is only one vector for the
spin of both A and B.  So Alice can measure it and
B can measure it.  But neither can change or
control the measurement.  It's random.

Brent


Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send
messages to each other. But does either of the
particles send anything to the other? That's the issue.
It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some
actual content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent


Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG

If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert
space you wouldn't see anything.

Brent


Were people born before Hilbert blind? You're confusing the map
from the territory. AG

Are directions and amplitudes map or territory?

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.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread Alan Grayson

The map. Ultimately we're seeking the physicality underlying the 
correlations. AG

On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 1:49:48 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

>
>
>
> On 11/7/2024 8:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 7:12:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2024 5:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make 
> sense. AG*
>
>
> *It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you 
> and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your 
> Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four 
> years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin 
> and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads 
> and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are 
> perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later 
> you're back home.  And now that you're back we compare our lists of 
> "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we 
> both got the same "random" sequence.*
>
> *That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until 
> you got back, and that took over four years because  Alpha Centauri is four 
> light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse 
> code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work 
> because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time. 
> You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you 
> did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very 
> delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins.  *
>
>
> Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows 
> what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum 
> mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of 
> entangled particles can send information to its partner, since if it 
> couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG 
>
> First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just 
> shorthand. Particles aren't entangled.  Some property of the particles is 
> entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So in Hilbert space, instead 
> of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the 
> spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B.  So Alice 
> can measure it and B can measure it.  But neither can change or control the 
> measurement.  It's random.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other. 
> But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the 
> issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual 
> content, if it exists. AG 
>
> The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG 
>
> If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert space you 
> wouldn't see anything.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Were people born before Hilbert blind? You're confusing the map from the 
> territory. AG 
>
> Are directions and amplitudes map or territory?
>
> 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 view this discussion visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/939207ad-4edd-462c-9f19-fb50d6aaf034n%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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c53159e9-2832-4b75-9638-81a4cbbf3c35n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Spin Superposition

2024-11-08 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/7/2024 8:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 7:12:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 5:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent
Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7
John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> An effect between entangled pairs but no
information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG/

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical
contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum
entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in
your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of
light for a little over four years to Alpha
Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping
your coin and I do the same on Earth. We both write
down a record of all the heads and tails we got and
both of us conclude that the sequences we got are
perfectly random. Then you get back in your
spaceship and four years later you're back home.
And now that you're back we compare our lists of
"random" coin flips and we find that the two
sequences are identical, we both got the same
"random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed
anything was strange until you got back, and that
took over four years because Alpha Centauriis four
light years away. If we try to use our coins
discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning
a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work
because your coin will only come up the way you
want it to 50% of the time.You could of course
force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if
you did that you would destroy the quantum
entanglement because it is very delicate, and then
you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled
particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't
entangled. Some property of the particles is entangled,
e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in Hilbert space,
instead of there being two different vector components
for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one
vector for the spin of both A and B. So Alice can
measure it and B can measure it. But neither can change
or control the measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages
to each other. But does either of the particles send
anything to the other? That's the issue. It's called an
"effect". But an effect must have some actual content, if it
exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG

If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert space
you wouldn't see anything.

Brent

Were people born before Hilbert blind? You're confusing the map from
the territory. AG

Are directions and amplitudes map or territory?

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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/939207ad-4edd-462c-9f19-fb50d6aaf034n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 7:12:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 5:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make
sense. AG*

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you
and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your
Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four
years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin
and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads
and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are
perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later
you're back home. And now that you're back we compare our lists of
"random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we
both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you
got back, and that took over four years because Alpha Centauri is four
light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse
code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work
because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time.
You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you
did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very
delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just
shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property of the particles is
entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in Hilbert space, instead
of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the
spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B. So Alice
can measure it and B can measure it. But neither can change or control the
measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other.
But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the
issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual
content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG

If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert space you
wouldn't see anything.

Brent

Were people born before Hilbert blind? You're confusing the map from the
territory. AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/7/2024 5:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John
Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> An effect between entangled pairs but no
information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG/

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical
contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum entangled
coins, I stay on earth but you get in your Spaceship and
travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over
four years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and
start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth. We
both write down a record of all the heads and tails we
got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got
are perfectly random. Then you get back in your
spaceship and four years later you're back home. And
now that you're back we compare our lists of "random"
coin flips and we find that the two sequences are
identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything
was strange until you got back, and that took over four
years because Alpha Centauriis four light years away.
If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse
code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash
it won't work because your coin will only come up the
way you want it to 50% of the time.You could of course
force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you
did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement
because it is very delicate, and then you would just
have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles"
is just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property
of the particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or
position. So in Hilbert space, instead of there being two
different vector components for the spin of A and the spin of
B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B. So
Alice can measure it and B can measure it. But neither can
change or control the measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to
each other. But does either of the particles send anything to the
other? That's the issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect
must have some actual content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG
If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert space you
wouldn't see anything.

Brent

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make
sense. AG*

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you
and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your
Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four
years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin
and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads
and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are
perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later
you're back home. And now that you're back we compare our lists of
"random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we
both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you
got back, and that took over four years because Alpha Centauri is four
light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse
code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work
because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time.
You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you
did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very
delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just
shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property of the particles is
entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in Hilbert space, instead
of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the
spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B. So Alice
can measure it and B can measure it. But neither can change or control the
measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other.
But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the
issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual
content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> An effect between entangled pairs but no information
sent? Doesn't make sense. AG/

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction.
Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on
earth but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the
speed of light for a little over four years to Alpha
Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin and
I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all
the heads and tails we got and both of us conclude that the
sequences we got are perfectly random. Then you get back in
your spaceship and four years later you're back home. And
now that you're back we compare our lists of "random" coin
flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we
both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was
strange until you got back, and that took over four years
because Alpha Centauriis four light years away. If we try to
use our coins discern a message by Morse code with heads
meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work because
your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the
time.You could of course force your coin to come up heads or
tails, but if you did that you would destroy the quantum
entanglement because it is very delicate, and then you would
just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is
just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property of the
particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in
Hilbert space, instead of there being two different vector
components for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one
vector for the spin of both A and B. So Alice can measure it and
B can measure it. But neither can change or control the
measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each
other. But does either of the particles send anything to the other?
That's the issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have
some actual content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

*
*
***John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
tne

--
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 visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7378a08-c88b-43d7-bfde-2139b45ec6f8n%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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b73428e5-d8ec-4486-bfc2-c9c957e5818en%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/7/2024 2:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 1:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan
Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John
Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You
were very certain. /

*I asserted no such thing!*

*I said _IF_ quantum mechanics is local and
deterministic then it can't be realistic. And Many
Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. *
*
*
*And I said _IF_ quantum mechanicsis realistic and
deterministic then it can't be local.And pilot wave
theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. *
*
*
*And I said _IF_ quantum mechanics is realistic and
local then it can't be deterministic. And objective
collapse is realistic and local but not deterministic. *
*
*
*And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is
violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I
prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right. *
*
*
*You can't be _realistic_ and _local_ and
_deterministic_ and still be compatible with the
violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta
give. *
*
*
*Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know,
Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third
favorite is "other", and my fourth favorite is
pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and
the universe's favorites may not be the same thing. *

/> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest
instantaneous action at a distance, which
suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG /

*Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to
quantum mechanics, but thatfact doesn't enable you
to send information faster than light,so it's of no
help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is
violated. *

*Because information can't be sent, some people say
there is instantaneous influencing and this is
sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG*

**
*Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously,
apparently entangled pairs can. *

*They can have an effect, but they can't send information.*

*
*
*An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent?
Doesn't make sense. AG*

*I can only give you an argument. I can't understand it for you.

Brent*

All I am asking is what does an "effect" consist of? Many physicists
think of instantaneous action at a distance. AG
No, you're claiming it doesn't make sense to have an effect but not send
information. If you looked at the vu-graph I posted it's easy to see
that each end gets random results and the effect is only seen when they
are compared.

Brent

*
*

* There is correlation which you probably think means one
can send information, but remember QM results are random.
You can't control your end of the entangled pair and so you
can't send a message. The correlation is only noticed when
you bring two sets of measurements together. Here's what a
Bell's test experiment looks like that won the Nobel prize
for showing that QM correlation is stronger than can be
explained classically:

See how each record at A and at B are random. So no signal
can be sent.

Brent
*

*IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local
theory? AG*

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

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%40googlegroups.com

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

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make
sense. AG*

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you
and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your
Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four
years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin
and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads
and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are
perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later
you're back home. And now that you're back we compare our lists of
"random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we
both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you
got back, and that took over four years because Alpha Centauri is four
light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse
code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work
because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time.
You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you
did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very
delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just
shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property of the particles is
entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in Hilbert space, instead
of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the
spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B. So Alice
can measure it and B can measure it. But neither can change or control the
measurement. It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other.
But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the
issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual
content, if it exists. AG

*John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
tne

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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7378a08-c88b-43d7-bfde-2139b45ec6f8n%40googlegroups.com

Re: Spin Superposition

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 1:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. *

*I asserted no such thing! *

*I said IF quantum mechanics is local and deterministic then it can't be
realistic. And Many Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. *

*And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and deterministic then it
can't be local. And pilot wave theory is realistic and deterministic but
not local. *

*And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and local then it can't be
deterministic. And objective collapse is realistic and local but not
deterministic. *

*And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is violated can't rule out
any of those three ideas, I prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm
right. *

*You can't be realistic and local and deterministic and still be compatible
with the violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta give. *

*Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know, Objective Collapse is my
second favorite, my third favorite is "other", and my fourth favorite is
pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and the universe's favorites
may not be the same thing. *

*> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a
distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG *

*Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to quantum mechanics, but
that fact doesn't enable you to send information faster than light, so it's
of no help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated. *

*Because information can't be sent, some people say there is instantaneous
influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG*

*Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously, apparently
entangled pairs can. *

*They can have an effect, but they can't send information.*

*An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make
sense. AG*

*I can only give you an argument. I can't understand it for you. Brent*

All I am asking is what does an "effect" consist of? Many physicists think
of instantaneous action at a distance. AG

* There is correlation which you probably think means one can send
information, but remember QM results are random. You can't control your
end of the entangled pair and so you can't send a message. The correlation
is only noticed when you bring two sets of measurements together. Here's
what a Bell's test experiment looks like that won the Nobel prize for
showing that QM correlation is stronger than can be explained classically:
See how each record at A and at B are random. So no signal can be sent.
Brent *

*IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? AG*

To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%40googlegroups.com

Re: Spin Superposition

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

/> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent?
Doesn't make sense. AG/

*It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction.
Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth
but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of
light for a little over four years to Alpha Centauri, then you
slow down and start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth.
We both write down a record of all the heads and tails we got and
both of us conclude that the sequences we got are perfectly
random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later
you're back home. And now that you're back we compare our lists
of "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are
identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.*

*That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange
until you got back, and that took over four years because Alpha
Centauriis four light years away. If we try to use our coins
discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning a dot and tails
meaning a dash it won't work because your coin will only come up
the way you want it to 50% of the time.You could of course force
your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you did that you would
destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very delicate, and
then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins. *

Two observers can't send information to each other because neither
knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled
quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of
a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner,
since if it couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG
First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just
shorthand. Particles aren't entangled. Some property of the particles
is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position. So in Hilbert space,
instead of there being two different vector components for the spin of A
and the spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and
B. So Alice can measure it and B can measure it. But neither can
change or control the measurement. It's random.

Brent

*
*
***John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
*
tne

--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7378a08-c88b-43d7-bfde-2139b45ec6f8n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Spin Superposition