On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you >>> explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. >>> >> >>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not >>> there? >>> > >>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both slits in >>> the same world...thus being non-local. >>> >>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave of >>> histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one world” is >>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism. >>> >> >> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a measurement >> must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you fall in love >> with the implications of this error, you are firmly in woo-woo land with >> the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this illusion / >> delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG * >> > > *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one particle > at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be because > particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any > event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes us > down a deeper rabbit hole. AG* > > > Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits. If > you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a > “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in > parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by > the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all > results obtained in the parallel branches. >
*No. It's all nonsense. AG * > > If you can explain all this without FTL in one unique physical reality, > then write a paper and publish, you will be famous. > > Bruno > > > > > > > >> >> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > 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 <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.
