On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a >>>>>> coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise >>>>>> the >>>>>> level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result >>>>>> when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new >>>>>> here. >>>>>> Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B >>>>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct >>>>>> measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can >>>>>> directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and >>>>>> confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or >>>>>> b >>>>>> at random. The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin >>>>>> orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a >>>>>> RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP. >>>>>> Any >>>>>> particular orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two >>>>>> orthogonal states. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, >>>>> you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion >>>>> and >>>>> caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to >>>>> be >>>>> saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, >>>>> the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which >>>>> is >>>>> also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the >>>>> LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue >>>>> after >>>>> UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons. How does one get the system >>>>> to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for >>>>> which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the >>>>> persistent eigenvalue?* >>>>> >>>>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state >>>>> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the >>>>> spin >>>>> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state >>>>> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense >>>>> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and >>>>> simultaneously >>>>> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). * >>>>> >>>>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the >>>>> gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now >>>>> must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. >>>>> Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such >>>>> representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your >>>>> argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, >>>>> I >>>>> could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), >>>>> or >>>>> in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that >>>>> the >>>>> system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis >>>>> vectors.* >>>>> >>>>> *AG* >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he >>>> doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the >>>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous >>>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, >>>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of >>>> what QM is telling us. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs >>>> in basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics >>>> of >>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc. >>>> >>> >>> *I am not trying to explain the interference. * >>> >>> >>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if >>> the wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the >>> wave physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to >>> a single particle. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary assumption that leads to >>> paradoxes.* >>> >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * See comment below. AG* >>> >>> >>>> The whole point of the physical wave amplitudes is that the diverse >>>> superposed components have a physical role, through destructive or >>>> constructive, or in between, interference. >>>> >>> >>> *The amplitudes give probabilities of occurrence, confirmed by >>> measurements. Nothing more. You forget that the components of the >>> superposition are usually assumed to be orthogonal states, which don't >>> mutually interfere. Thus, you are claiming to explain interference from >>> component states which don't interfere. * >>> >>> >>> That is what we do with any wave, and there is no problem there. It just >>> that cos(pi/2) is zero. >>> >> > *You're mistaken. In quantum superpositions, orthogonal does not mean 90 > deg out of phase -- as is the case for ordinary vectors in the plane -- but > that the inner product is zero. * > > > > That is what I mean. > > > > > > *Hence, since the inner product of all components of a superposition are > mutually orthogonal, or zero, how can you claim that interference exists? > AG* > > > > A position (say at one hole) is models by a vector in an abstract linear > space. The position at the other hole (I’m thinking of the two slit > experiences) is represented by another vector. The fact that the two > position are distinct and distinguishable made them described by orthogonal > vector in that abstract linear space (an Hilbert space). >
*Orthogonal vectors don't manifest interference, as shown in the simple case of vectors in a plane, which form a linear vector space. In the double slit case, there IS interference of various types along the screen, the components of the superposition DO interfere, but they are NOT orthogonal. AG * > The interference of statistics comes from the fact that the available > stories are described by a wave function, which describe my relative > ignorance on which histories I belong to. When the to holes are open, the > particle state might be described by a superposition of those two position, > which makes some angle different from PI/2, > *The interference, constructive, destructive, or in between, depends on the position of impacts and the distance between the slits. I don't deny interference among the (two) component terms of the superposition in this case. Rather, I object to the generalization of this idea to quantum superpositions composed of orthogonal states. AG* > so that interference terms can appear, and indeed can be reflected on the > screen by interference fringes if I repeat the experience with the same > wave again and again. > > The problem here is that the amplitude of the wave, when squared, give a > probability to find a particle somewhere, but this forced us to make the > wave physical, as it will behave differently if there is two slits, one > splits, etc. > *Assuming the wf gives us correct probability results, it's surely the case that it gives us information, what is the argument hat it also has physical reality, whatever that means. What does physical reality mean here, without resorting to your arithmetic theory? AG* > *Try this; in the case of radioactive decay, can you define the >>> interference between Decayed and Undecayed states? AG* >>> >>> >>> It is not relevant. I prefer ro use superposition of spin, than a >>> temporal phenomenon. >>> >> >> *OK, then use superposition of spin and describe the interference. Note >> that since the Up and Dn are orthogonal, there is no interference.* >> > > > The interferences are between waves, not state. > *We're doing Wave Mechanics, where the state functions are also called WAVE functions, so the interference, if it exists, is between states or wf's. In the case of vectors in the plane, orthogonality between two vectors means 90 degrees in separation. These vectors don't interfere because they are orthogonal -- defined as the dot product, aka, inner product, which is zero. So, in a quantum superposition, whether there is interference between the components depends on whether there is mutual interference as defined by the inner product. In standard QM, the superposition is understood, or usually written, as sums of orthogonal states. So no interference. Correct me if I am wrong, or if you disagree. AG* With the spin Up can be written as superpositions, like > > Up = 1/sqrt(2) Up’ + 1/sqrt(2) Down > Down = 1/sqrt(2) Up’ - 1/sqrt(2) Down > *What is Up'? So the wf for spin, which is Up + Dn (leaving out normalization factor) is, you now imply, 2/sqrt(2) Up'. Make no sense. CMIIAW. AG * > > The interference comes from sum and difference of such superpositions. > > Take the two “orthogonal” slits: in classical physics you can add up and > multiply he probabilities in the usual way for the alternatives and > sequence of events, but in quantum mechanics, you have an amplitude, which > describes a “wave of history”, and to predict the final state, you need to > square the amplitude, and this takes into account all path, basically > because (a+ b)^2 is different from a^2 + b^2. > > > > * That is, generally, when we write a superposition where the components >> are eigenstates, it is assumed the components are mutually orthogonal, >> hence no interference. AG* >> >>> >>> >>>> Note that the discussion here supposed the quantum theory, but you are >>>> free of course to propose an alternative. Many have tried without success, >>>> though. >>>> >>> >>> *What I am doing is asking the usual suspects the basis for the >>> assumption that the components of a superposition physically exist >>> simultaneously. So far, IMO, their silence is pregnant. They can't. AG * >>> >>> >>> >>> Then explain me what happens in the two slit experiments, when we send >>> the particles “one by one”. >>> You need superposition to explain this. It is the base of QM: particles >>> dynamics are described by waves, and those wave do superpose and interfere, >>> even when the particles are alone. >>> >> >> *I don't have to explain everything, and in fact I cannot. All I want to >> know is how can there be interference among components of a superposition, >> **when >> they are mutually orthogonal. AG * >> > > I don’t really understand the language. You have interference when the > wave of a particle describe different outcomes possible for some observable. > *I think this is wrong. See my above comment about orthogonality. Writing a superposition as a sum of possible eigenstates does not necessarily imply interference, not if the states are orthogonal, which is usually assumed. AG* > If it is the position, like in the two slits, interference comes from the > existence of state “superposing” two (or more) states from the base. The > interference is, somehow, the superposition itself, when recombined at some > place (screen, interferometer, etc.) > *In the double slit, there IS interference between the waves exiting from each slit. But IMO this should not be generalized for all superpositions of quantum systems. As I wrote, I believe that from this seminal experiment, arose the general interpretation of superposition, which I contest. So far, I have not seen any justification of this extension. It leads to the false belief IMO, that systems in superpositions are simultaneously in all component states, from which we the MWI and cats alive and dead simultaneously. In the latter case, Brent claimed that Schroedinger got it wrong, and that decoherence theory explains it by asserting the cat is in the apparently contradictory state for only fractions of nano seconds, so we never see that state. IMO, this explanation doesn't work for several reasons, one of which is that the wf used in decoherence theory assumes the measuring device is put in place before decoherence occurs. But how is this possible with such a short decoherence time? Long before the device is attached and the experiment is performed, it has interacted with the environment, meaning that the wf on which decoherence is based, is impossible to establish. AG * > > Do you know the book by David Albert “Quantum Mechanics and Experience”, > it is quite good pedagogically, and he explains well the “problem”. He > dmisloh Everett very badly (good for Everett!), and defend Bohm quite > unconvincingly (for me at least). But he introduces very well the basic > core theory, using only very elementary algebra. > > Bruno > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Incidentally, when you earlier referred to a RIGHT/LEFT superposition, >>>> did you mean circular polarization, or right and left directions in a SG >>>> apparatus in relation to Up/Dn measurements? TIA, AG * >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This is true in general. Any state can be written as a superposition >>>>>> of states in some other basis. But it is not generally true that we can >>>>>> prepare or directly measure a system in any given state. So those >>>>>> states >>>>>> we can't directly access, we tend to think of them as existing only as >>>>>> superpositions of states we can prepare. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-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.
