On 10/11/2019 2:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2019 11:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> I am saying that SINCE there is no unique
representation, it's a
> fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert
that the
> components in one representation, simultaneously
represent the wf.
But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique
representation,
then there is more than one representation. Some of
those consist of a
linear composition of components. You seem to infer that
because there
is no unique representation then representations in terms
of components
is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent,
they are
logically equivalent; each one implies the other.
Brent
No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are
valid. What's invalid
is singling out one representation and asserting the system
is simultaneously
in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG
I wasn't clear in one or more of my previous comments, but the
latter is what I meant.
All representations are valid; basic linear algebra. But to
ascribe ontological status to
one particular set of components, when in general there exists an
uncountable set, is
a fallacy. I thought I illustrated that point with S's cat. AG
Contrast the SG experiments with silver atoms. In that case the
different bases are equally real, but an atom can be in definite
spin state, say UP, which is a superposition of LEFT and RIGHT.
This can be confirmed by measuring in the LEFT/RIGHT basis. So
did the LEFT/RIGHT components exist when the atom was in the UP
state? That sounds like a metaphysical or semantic question about
the meaning of "being in" a state. But Schroedinger's cat is
different because it is impossible to measure in the |LIVE>+|DEAD>
and |LIVE>-|DEAD> basis. That was Schroedinger's point that this
superposition is absurd. But why is it absurd? The best answer
seems to be Zurek's einselection, meaning it's/not/ because
there's an uncountable set of bases in the LIVE/DEAD hyperplane,
but because only |LIVE> and |DEAD> are stable states against
environmental interaction.
Brent
There may be some exceptions for my claim. I need to study the silver
atom case and get back to you. But in the case of S's cat, I think the
problem is with the alleged quantum states of |Live> and |Dead>. What
is the operator that has those states as eigenstates? If it can't be
specified, maybe the construct makes no sense. AG
Well none, or at least none that anyone could possibly implement as a
Hermitean projection operator of some instrument. Schrodinger just
chose ALIVE/DEAD to emphasize how absurd it was to attribute
superpositions to macroscopic objects. But he didn't know /why/ it was
absurd. He could have stuck to just the radioactive atom decaying or
the geiger counter tube detecting it, but that wouldn't have been
obviously absurd.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74939dfd-0c65-a0b4-d01a-3983f57d100c%40verizon.net.