Think of a piece of music. There is a sequence of notes that occur in time and we perceive different sets of frequencies in time. Yet we are trained to think according to the Fourier logic that there is a time domain, where we hear no tones of different pitch, or there is the frequency domain where we would get all the tones and harmonics in "no time." Something is more general, and in a theory of overcomplete states the phase has structure for the symplectic group of dynamics and the Riemannian geometry of geodesic flow. These two have different algebraic structures.
We tend to think of the wave as having no measurable content, but in recent times experiments have showed wavy physics. The Cheshire cat experiment that delocalizes a wave so that charge and mass occurs "here"" and the spin occurs "there," clearly demonstrates the waveiness of quantum physics. The usual is a localization of quantum states, what we call collapse. The loss of quantum phase is a situation where t → it = ħ/kT and the phase with Lie algebraic properties has its complexity or information converted to a Jordan algebraic form. In this way we can have our cake and eat it too, or listen to a piece of music without it being a clash of various tones or conversely a dull endless monotone bass note. LC On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 7/1/2021 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > * > The math says the wave function travels thru both slots. * >> > > But when a single electron hits a photographic plate it doesn't produce a > vague smudge that a wave would, it produces a discreet spot. > > > First, why do you think a probability amplitude wave would not produce a > discreet spot? Do you imagine it should produce smear werever it is > greater than 10% or 1% or what? Second, in an actual experiment, it > doesn't produce a discreet spot. On film it produces a cluster of silver > atoms. And since an electron is a point particle, any spot at all is much > bigger than the electron. > > > That's because the complex wave function, which contains the square root > of -1 in it, is NOT an observable quantity, > > > Right, only the amplified and decohered effect of the probabilistic event > is observable. That's why Bohr insisted that a classical world was > necessary in order that science be possible, since only classical > observables could be objectively agreed upon. > > > > > only the square of the absolute value of it is, and even then only as a > probability. And that is exactly what you would expect things to be like if > when an electron encounters two slits everything in the universe splits, > including you the observer. In the instant after the universe is split into > 2 when an observer does not yet know which branch he is in, Born's rule > is the only one that produces the correct probabilities in Everett's > multiverse. > > > It's actually the only rule that provides a probability measure on a > Hilbert space (Gleason's theorem). But there's a disconnect between the > mechanism of decoherence and the assignment of probabilities to different > worlds, as Bruce has pointed out. There has to be a separate axiom that > says there is this splitting into worlds that is probabilistic. > Self-locating uncertainty was invented to explain this, but it seems > incoherent in that it supposes there is some "self" that could be here or > there, independent of the physical being which is both places. > > Brent > > > >> *> That happens in the same world and so the two paths produce >> interference patterns. * >> > > True, the interference is only observable if the two worlds recombine > back into one. > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > n8va > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0H2yASJig1_eGLun8PJ5nQ8wjc2-7mC818ZY7GQUSa1Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0H2yASJig1_eGLun8PJ5nQ8wjc2-7mC818ZY7GQUSa1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/32c14dee-66b0-457b-a9e7-5cb9064cb3cbn%40googlegroups.com.
