On 1/11/2025 4:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 8:31 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:

        *>>  By adding that one unnecessary rule you've implicitly
        added an astronomical number, and possibly an infinite number,
        of assumptions;*

    /
    /
    /> It's not an assumption.  It's a consistently observed fact,/


*It's a consistently observed fact that nobody has ever felt like they were in a quantum superposition, but it's not clear what that would even mean.
*


        *>> If Quantum Mechanics is correct, and I think it's a pretty
        damn good assumption that it is, then in the Schrodinger cat
        experiment you've got a superposition of 2 quantum states,  {
        [ ( a live cat) + (the environment with a live cat in it) +
        (Brent Meeker in that environment looking at a live cat) ]   +
          [ ( a dead live cat) + (the environment with a dead cat in
        it) + (Brent Meeker in that environment looking at a dead
        cat)] }. Thus Brent Meeker#1 would say it is an observable
        fact that the cat is alive and Brent Meeker#2 would say it is
        an observable fact that the cat is not alive.*

    /> Those are *probabilistic* predictions.  And *only one* of #1 or
    #2 as ever been observed in a realization of this experiment
    Schroedinger's equation./


*And that is exactly what you'd expect to see if you assume that everything always follows Schroedinger's Equation.*

    /> This is the *Improved Elitzur-Vaidman Bomb Detector*. It puts
    the Mach-Zender interferometer into a loop in which photons are
    put in, allowed to circulate a fixed number of times and then let
    out into a detector. /


*If you make the original Elitzur-Vaidman Bomb Detector more complicated you can increase its efficiency, but making a thought experiment more complicated than necessary does not make it a better thought experiment. *

    > /Each photon is put in horizontally polarized. /


*And if Many Worlds is correct then each time you do that the universe splits, in one the photon is left polarized and in the other it is right polarized.*

    /> It is allowed to circulate N times, N=6 in the actual
    experiment, and then it is switched out and its polarization is
    detected.  Each time it passes thru the polarization rotator, it's
    plane of polarization is rotated by 90deg/N/


*And if Many Worlds is correct then every time ahorizontally polarizedphoton is rotated by 90° the universe splits, in one of them the photon is polarized up and in the other it is polarized down.
*
I don't think you've grasped the experiment at all.  The photon is rotated in small increments up to as much as 90°, there isn't any "in the other".  Why do you not include the diagrams?  You just make it harder to discuss them.*
*

    > /The polarizing beam splitter.../


/*... c**auses the universe to split.... etc...*/

    /> Now John can you explain what this has to do with
    multiple-worlds? /


*I can do better than that, I can tell you what the inventors of the quantum bomb tester,  Elitzur and Vaidman, thought it had to do with multiple-worlds. The following quote comes from Wikipedia: * */"The authors state that the ability to obtain information about the bomb's functionality without ever "touching" it appears to be a paradox that, they argue, is based on the assumption that there is only a single "real" result. But according to the many-worlds interpretation, each possible state of a particle's superposition is real. The authors therefore argue that the particle does actually interact with the bomb and it does explode, just not in our "world"."/*
And what does that have to do with it working?  I explained why it works without invoking any unobservable worlds.  I noted that it does explode /sometimes/, with a low probability as I showed in my diagram.
*/
/*
*You might also be interested in the following video, Lev Vaidmanstarts his talk by bluntly saying Many Words is _by far_ the best quantum interpretation:
*
And Scott Aaronson says it isn't.  But I'm forming an opinion based on a vote (Trump carried the popular vote last time too.)

Brent
*
*

*Lev Vaidman | The Many Worlds Interpretation as the (Best) Explanation of the Results of Experiments <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPyQhu_C3GE>
*

*John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
4g7
--
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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dMFJ0Z1q-FruNQY6Pt9nRK9en%3DVmnPoO7hk3pj4DhTQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dMFJ0Z1q-FruNQY6Pt9nRK9en%3DVmnPoO7hk3pj4DhTQ%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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a4502c5-de71-400b-bec7-37a278cf6a7e%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to