On 4/26/2018 10:38 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@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 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.
*Can't no detection just mean an inefficient measuring device? AG*
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
*Just SG, not Buckyball. Not sure what Buckyball proves. *
It proves interference is destroyed just by the welcher weg being
available "out there" even if it was absorbed by a wall and completely
impractical for any person to recover.
*You have an interference pattern when it goes through slit, and no IR
photons detected. What does one thing have to do with another? Sorry;
this is very confusing. AG
Earlier, this particular discussion began with your comments about the
Heisenberg Cut and you claimed it said something about splitting of
worlds. "Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and
it describes the splitting of worlds." If you don't believe in the
MWI, how can you claim decoherence is well defined and supports
splitting of worlds? AG*
Believing in things is for religionists.
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.
