On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 9:40:10 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:51:12 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:53:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2019 6:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 3:37:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 3:27:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/10/2019 8:02 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:21:50 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/9/2019 3:52 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:28:38 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/8/2019 9:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>> > I've argued this before, but it's worth stating again. It's a >>>>>>>> > misintepretation of superposition to claim that a system >>>>>>>> described by >>>>>>>> > it, is in all the component states simultaneously. As is easily >>>>>>>> seen >>>>>>>> > in ordinary vector space, an arbitrary vector has an uncountable >>>>>>>> > number of different representations. Thus, to claim it is in some >>>>>>>> > specific set of component states simultaneously, makes no sense. >>>>>>>> Thus >>>>>>>> > evaporates a key "mystery" of quantum theory, inclusive of S's >>>>>>>> cat and >>>>>>>> > Everett's many worlds. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. It changes the problem to the question of why there are >>>>>>>> preferred >>>>>>>> bases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who chose Alive and Dead, or Awake and Sleeping for the S. cat? >>>>>>> Wasn't it the observer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could the observer have chosen |alive>+|dead> and |alive>-|dead> as >>>>>>> a basis? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *That's a great question and the answer is No, because, as you would >>>>>> say, the pair (|Alive>, |Dead>), forms a "preferred" basis. We can only >>>>>> measure Alive or Dead. However, the other pair you have above is a >>>>>> perfectly valid state of the S cat system, a vector in the Hilbert Space >>>>>> of >>>>>> the system, and presumably there is an uncountable set of other valid >>>>>> states in Hilbert Space. This means that the interpretation of a >>>>>> superposition of the first pair is just as valid as the interpretation >>>>>> of >>>>>> any other pair; namely, that the system is in both components >>>>>> simultanously. But this is obvious nonsense given the plethora of valid >>>>>> bases, so the interpretation fails. THIS is my point. Am I mistaken? AG* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The way I read what you posted above is that it would "make no sense" >>>>>> to say a ship on a heading of 345deg is simultaneously moving on a >>>>>> 270deg >>>>>> and 90deg heading. I think that does make sense. The interesting >>>>>> question is could it be moving on some other heading? The answer might >>>>>> be >>>>>> no, it's in the Panama Canal. In other words there may be something >>>>>> else >>>>>> in physics that determines perferred basis, even thought he bare >>>>>> Schrodinger equation doesn't seem to. >>>>>> >>>>>> brent >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, not what I meant. Rather, a ship with a heading of 345 deg, could >>>>> be represented as moving on a 270deg and 90deg heading, *as well as >>>>> an uncountable combination of other headings.* I think this >>>>> fundamental misinterpretation of superposition of states leads to the MWI >>>>> and a host of other "mysteries" alleged in QM. AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> IOW, you can think of the wf representing a heading of 345deg, and >>>> since the basis in Hilbert Space is *not* unique, you can imagine that >>>> very *same* wf composed of *different* components. Thus, if it's >>>> claimed that one set of basis components simultaneously represents the wf, >>>> one can also find another, *different* set of basis components to >>>> simultaneously represent the wf. It therefore makes no sense to claim that >>>> any set of basis components simultaneously represents the wf. >>>> Specifically, >>>> the quantum claim that a system can be in several component states >>>> simultaneously, is bogus, since the components are *not unique*. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> But my example of the ship shows that it's a commonplace that a vector >>>> can be represented as a sum of components in infinitely many ways...it's a >>>> trivial result of being a vector space. It's just your prejudice that >>>> there has to be a unique "really, really real" representation. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I suppose if a ship was sent through double straits (A,B) to a linear >>> array of docks D(x), then some angle pairs (A,D(x)), (B,D(x)) would >>> interfere with each other and some would reinforce. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> I'm trying to make an important claim, so I don't appreciate jokes on >> this thread. AG >> > > > > It wasn't a joke. > > What I call a "ship" above can be done with a *2000-atom molecule* in a > double slit experiment (latest news). > > Now a 2000-atom molecule is not as big as ship, but it should provide what > you need to know, If you think about it. > > @philipthrift >
These are oligo-tetraphenyl porphyrins enriched with fluoroalkyl-sulfanyl chains. @philithrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b1630ed-6d4e-4b21-8b84-a13232ffcd69%40googlegroups.com.
