On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com 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
I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through
a SG device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no
decoherence in this case?
No. I just saying when you posed the problem you didn't say anything
about detection. You just said an electron went through an SG apparatus.
From what I gather from descriptions of decoherence, it occurs when a
measurement occurs, and the particle's wf gets entangled with the
measurement device. This is a detection, and I think you're saying the
world splits. If so, why would it? If there's no detection for
whatever reason, what are we to conclude? I would guess, nothing. AG
No. The world still splits because no-detection means the particle took
the other path where there was no detector, at least that's the MWI
theory. This is confirmed by the buckyball Young's slit experiment.
The interference pattern disappeared even though the IR photons weren't
measured.
You've been around these lists for years. Haven't you read these
experiments?
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
