On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:28:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2018 7:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/10/2018 3:30 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *More and more, Dirac's claim seems to be an illusion that most everyone >> has fallen in love with. Consider the example of a vector in a plane >> decomposed as a superposition of unit vectors in some orthogonal basis, Not >> an exact analogy to the quantum superposition of course, but worth thinking >> about. How many decompositions are possible? Well, rotations of the >> original orthogonal basis give an uncountable number of DIFFERENT >> decompositions. In fact, the set of NON orthogonal pairs define another >> uncountable set of bases, each of which results in a DIFFERENT >> decomposition. So in this example, it makes no sense to say the original >> vector is in two states simultaneously in some basis, when an uncountable >> set of other bases exist, each with a different decomposition. In the >> quantum case, it is natural and convenient to restrict ourselves to the >> basis in which the system is being measured. But even here, other bases >> exist which allow other, different, decompositions of the system into >> superpositions, sometimes countable, sometimes not, depending on the >> system. * >> >> >> All true. True of any vector space. SO WHAT? >> > > > *The "SO WHAT?" is that since many superpositions exist, it makes little > sense to single out one, even if it seems natural and convenient (say, in > the basis being measured), and assert the system is in both component > states simultanoeusly prior to measurement. AG * > > > Where does Dirac say anything about singling out states. His description > is completely arbitrary and applies to any states. Does it make little > sense to single out North and East directions? After all there are > infinitely many other coordinate systems that could be used. >
*Correct, but in his comment he's used the Up / Dn state of a SG experiment as an example. But if there are infinitely many other coordinate systems -- which of course I am not disputing -- why assert any system described as a superposition in any particular basis, is physically in any, or all of the component states simultaneously? AG* > > Brent > > >> *So, IMO, Dirac's claim fails, not to mention the fact that his >> "argument" in favor of simultaneity* >> >> >> "simultaneity" doesn't appear in Dirac's paragraph. So your rant is >> unclear. >> >> * of superposition states prior to measurement, is really just an >> assertion. AG* >> >> >> Instead of picking on a paragraph of Dirac taken out of context, why >> don't you go read a modern version. Try Asher Peres, "Quantum Theory: >> Concepts and Methods" pp 50, 116-117 >> >> 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 <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > 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.
