On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 8:35:11 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action* *Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. * *No, I don't believe in multiple copies of myself and these other worlds. Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do, or no memories at all? This model, MMI, is a desperate attempt to make sense of QM. AG* *So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, one pair for each polarizer setting. Do they already "exist" even though I have never done a polarizer experiment, or must I do the experiment to conjure them into existence? And if I do the experiment a second time, does another infinite set of Grayson pairs come into existence? And what happens to them after any experiment is completed? Do they continue to exist, independent of this Grayson in this world? AG* *No, I don't believe it, not simply because it utterly fails the smell test, but because I can't imagine any physical process to bring this absurdity into existence. (Nor, BTW, can I imagine, really IMAGINE, the invariance of the SoL, but at least in relativity, there are orders of magnitude fewer cognitive **dissonances to deal with.) You claim it's implied by S's equation, but although you can write a wf for photon spin, which is closely rela**ted to polarization, I don't see how S's equation can be solved for spin. So, like I previously said, S's equation in this case is MIA, Missing In Action, or OTL, Out To Lunch. Ball in your court. AG* *Oh, I remember the cos(theta) thing, where theta is the offset angle from the second polarizer which allows a measured photo to go through 100%. When the angle is zero degrees, since cos(0)=1, a measured photon will pass through 100% of the time, whereas if the angle is 90 degrees, since cos(90)=0 it won't pass 100%, and for in between angles, the photon will pass with a probability of cos(theta), depending on the theta. I think I knew that in another life. AG * *This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. * *I believe the reason Many Worlds is not as universally accepted as Kepler's laws of planetary motion has nothing to do with physics, it has to do with human psychology. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* ndp -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b3554800-39ab-4852-a5bd-c03b0b997a67n%40googlegroups.com.
