On 10/11/2019 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:20:43 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 6:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
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
I agree with that! If it shows that superpositions cannot be
attributed to macroscopic objects, then perhaps the idea that
everything is quantum is precarious, if not false. And if he
didn't need a cat, just a radioactive source, what would the
consequences have been? AG
Maybe Schroedinger wanted to show that superposition was inherently
absurd, when interpreted as a radioactive source being decayed and
undecayed simultaneously -- which is what I have been claiming on
other grounds. AG
But that's not absurd, because it is possible to have a radioactive atom
that is isolated from all environment and other degrees of freedom and
so it might exist in a superposition. This is how quantum computers
gain power compared to classical computers. Qubits exist in
superpositions. But it's hard to keep them cold enough and isolated
enough for long enough to computer something.
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/ee0b8053-27be-d047-67fa-316fe47d33b6%40verizon.net.