On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:
On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC,
Brent wrote:
On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
*On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is
invariant for all observers regardless of the
relative motion of source and recipient, but
it has testable consequences. The MWI has no
testable consequences, so it makes no sense
to omit this key difference in your
historical comparisons with other apparent
absurdities in physics. Moreover when you
factor into consideration that non locality
persists in the many worlds postulated --
assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what
exactly has been gained by asserting the MWI?
Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is
significant as any false path would be. AG*
It's one possible answer to the question of
where the Heisenberg cut is located (the other
is QBism). It led to the theory of
decoherence and Zurek's theory of quantum
Darwinism which may explain Born's rule.
Brent
*
I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a
nebulous concept, a kind of hypothetical
demarcation between the quantum and classical
worlds. *
That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an
objective physical definition. Bohr regarded it as
a choice in analyzing an experiment; you put it
where ever was convenient.
*What kind of boundary are we talking about, and
how could the MWI shed any light on it, whatever
it is? AG *
In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's
a splitting of worlds which has some objective
location in terms of decoherence.
Brent
The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed
light on anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is
adding another layer of confusion. AG
Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process
and it describes the splitting of worlds. There is
still some question whether it entails the Born rule,
but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom.
Brent
Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its
spin state becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the
device. How do you infer splitting of worlds from this? AG
I don't. Why should I?
Brent
I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the
splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence
You didn't give an example of decoherence. Where's the
decoherence in an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
Brent
That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I
thought decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured,
gets entangled with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG
device. Why is this not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is? TIA, AG
Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the
other, not when going thru the SG. It's a classic experiment to show
that particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.
So if you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits
when there is a detection vs no detection.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.