Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

Brent:  I'm suspicious of these fantasy thought experiments. But however 
detailed it may be doesn't answer my question as to what it would mean to erase 
the welcher weg but not the memory that the weg was detected. I noted that this 
is not like a classical erasure of a memory because in this case the coherence 
is maintained, sowhen the welcher weg is erased there is no long any 
fact-of-the-matter as to which way it went. There is no fact-of-the-matter that 
it was detected to go left or right. So the "memory" if it exists, is a false 
memory.

-

https://www.nature.com/news/how-quantum-trickery-can-scramble-cause-and-effect-1.22208

<>

The specific experiment is here https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01683. Not an easy 
read ... SWITCH, "causal witness", and so on

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2018 4:43 PM, smitra wrote:

On 01-05-2018 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that's my question: Why isn't it the same? And even if it's not
how would be know? The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that
it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that
it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer,
before it was erased. But why would we believe it? We already have
these experiments in which we know the weg was available and could
have been recorded, but was erased. So what is the "consciousness"
that adds a secret-sauce to the experiment?
Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by
calling it "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction
with the welcher weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence
-- basically information was extracted that was not restored. Also,
of course, if the QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on the
fact that it did anything. How can we believe that it actually knew
which slit at some point?


Because in Deutsch experiment, not everything has been erased, notably
the memory that he has known the result. He would say something like:
I remember doing the measurement and writing it in the enveloppe. Now
the envelop has been erased, and I can’t remember its content, but I
definitely remember having known the content.
 But two questions remain.  First, the empirical question of whether
this erasure is enough to restore interference.

I do not see why it would not been enough … in theory. You need only
a computer able to forget a memory, but not some meta-memory that it
has recorded a definite result. It isa bit like remembering we have
done a dream, without being able to remember any of its content.

In practice, that might be very difficult, if not impossible. I am not
sure.


Second, why should we believe the quantum computer.


In Deutsch proposal, it is a human.
 No, it's a conscious quantum computer.  It it were a human or other
(quasi-) classical instrument decoherence would happen when there was
a detection of welcher weg and erasure would be impossible.

 Brent
Yes, but note that you can make that quantum computing simulation of 
the observer in that thought experiment as precise as you like. You 
can in principle include a simulation of the entire Earth 


And the outgoing EM and neutrino waves and their interaction with 
interstellar atoms.  I'm suspicious of these fantasy thought 
experiments.  But however detailed it may be doesn't answer my question 
as to what it would mean to erase the welcher weg but not the memory 
that the weg was detected.  I noted that this is not like a classical 
erasure of a memory because in this case the coherence is maintained, so 
when the welcher weg is erased there is no long any fact-of-the-matter 
as to which way it went.  There is no fact-of-the-matter that it was 
detected to go left or right.  So the "memory" if it exists, is a false 
memory.


with billions of other people and a lot of decoherence implemented by 
qubits that simulate e.g. soft photons and other environmental degrees 
of freedom (and all that decoherence will end up getting reversed by 
the way the computation is set up ) The point is that if computation 
generates consciousness, you can in principle let any given person do 
the experimental verification of the existence of multiple branches by 
uploading the brain to a quantum computer and letting it be subject to 
such a computation.


How will the person verify it?  Reversing the computation will reverse 
the person and erase their memory.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its 
> significance on John Baez's blog.  It agrees with my intuition that the 
> mathematical idea of "finite" is not so obvious. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
This gets into the rarefied atmosphere of degrees of unprovability. I have 
a book by Lerman on the subject, which I can read maybe 25 pages into 
before I am largely confused and lost. I would really need to be far better 
grounded in this. The idea is that one may ask if things are diagonal up 
to ω ordinarlity, which is standard Gödel/Turing machine stuff. Then we 
might however have Halting or provability out to ω + n, or 2ω to nω and 
then how about ω^n and then n^ω and now make is bigger with ω^ω and so 
forth. Then this in principle may continue onwards beyond the alephs into 
least accessible cardinals and so forth. One has this vast and maybe 
endless tower of greater transfinite models. 

Finite systems that are well defined are cyclic groups and related 
structures. A mathematical system that has some artificial bound on it is 
not going to satisfy any universal requirements. The most one can have is 
finite but unbounded. So long as one does not have some series or 
progression that grows endlessly this can work.

LC
 

>
>  Forwarded Message  
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, James  wrote: 
> > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Cris  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> ... For any set of axioms, there is a Turing machine which 1) never 
> halts and 2) that set of axioms cannot prove that it never halts. ... 
> > 
> >> But don’t you agree that the Halting Problem has a definite truth 
> value? In other words, that a given Turing machine (with a given input) 
> either runs forever or doesn’t, regardless of our ability to prove it? ... 
> > 
> > To answer the question posed, shouldn't we ask if, given any 
> > *particular* TM, there exists *some* consistent system/set of axioms 
> > that can prove whether it halts or not?  I was under the impression 
> > that the answer here was "yes", regardless of any individual 
> > consistent system being unable to tackle the general problem. 
>
> The problem is when you have nonstandard natural numbers.  It's 
> perfectly valid, for instance, to have a Turing machine halt after ω + 
> 3 steps.  You can say, "oh, but we use the unique standard model 
> defined by the second-order theory", but then the second order theory 
> has to live in some universe, and there are universes in which what's 
> uncomputable in your universe can be computable in mine: 
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/every-function-can-be-computable/ 
> https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/computing-the-uncomputable/ 
>
> So as soon as you move away from "only physically implementable math 
> is real", then you have do deal with all these other models. 
> -- 
> Mike 
> ___ 
> math-fun mailing list 
> math...@mailman.xmission.com  
> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun 
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 01-05-2018 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that's my question: Why isn't it the same? And even if it's not
how would be know? The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that
it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that
it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer,
before it was erased. But why would we believe it? We already have
these experiments in which we know the weg was available and could
have been recorded, but was erased. So what is the "consciousness"
that adds a secret-sauce to the experiment?
Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by
calling it "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction
with the welcher weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence
-- basically information was extracted that was not restored. Also,
of course, if the QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on the
fact that it did anything. How can we believe that it actually knew
which slit at some point?


Because in Deutsch experiment, not everything has been erased, notably
the memory that he has known the result. He would say something like:
I remember doing the measurement and writing it in the enveloppe. Now
the envelop has been erased, and I can’t remember its content, but I
definitely remember having known the content.
 But two questions remain.  First, the empirical question of whether
this erasure is enough to restore interference.

I do not see why it would not been enough … in theory. You need only
a computer able to forget a memory, but not some meta-memory that it
has recorded a definite result. It isa bit like remembering we have
done a dream, without being able to remember any of its content.

In practice, that might be very difficult, if not impossible. I am not
sure.


Second, why should we believe the quantum computer.


In Deutsch proposal, it is a human.
 No, it's a conscious quantum computer.  It it were a human or other
(quasi-) classical instrument decoherence would happen when there was
a detection of welcher weg and erasure would be impossible.

 Brent
Yes, but note that you can make that quantum computing simulation of the 
observer in that thought experiment as precise as you like. You can in 
principle include a simulation of the entire Earth with billions of 
other people and a lot of decoherence implemented by qubits that 
simulate e.g. soft photons and other environmental degrees of freedom 
(and all that decoherence will end up getting reversed by the way the 
computation is set up ) The point is that if computation generates 
consciousness, you can in principle let any given person do the 
experimental verification of the existence of multiple branches by 
uploading the brain to a quantum computer and letting it be subject to 
such a computation.


Saibal


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 20.49 Brent Meeker  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal 
> >  mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 
> > > 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> > > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds 
> > > > or manywords interpretation.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, 
> > > unless you agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of 
> > > the many superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the 
> > > collapse postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> > > worlds/states/minds.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those 
> > years, another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not 
> > possible, in general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe 
> > during the split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states 
> > of different energy. In this special case energy can increase in one 
> > universe and can decrease in another universe. 
> > 
> > > That led to the WAY therorem.
> 
> Brent
> 
Yes.

J.S.Bell wrote somewhere: "I think Einstein thought that Bohm's model was too 
glib too simple. I think he waslooking for a much more profound rediscovery of 
quantum phenomena. The idea that you could just add a few variables and the 
whole thing [quantum mechanics] would remain unchanged apart from the 
interpretation, which was a kind of trivial addition to ordinary quantum 
mechanics, must have been a disappointment to him. I can understand that to see 
that that is all you need to do to make a hidden-variable theory. I am sure 
that Einstein, and most other people, would have liked to have seen some big 
principle emerging, like the principle of relativity, or the principle of the 
conservation of energy. In Bohm's model one did not see anything like that."

It is interesting to point out that according to Mermin QM is about 
"correlations without correlata" (correlations  have physical reality while the 
correlata have no physical reality). According to C.Fuchs the opposite seems to 
be true in MWI (being a realistic interpretation), that is to say: "correlata 
without correlations". See https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801057 (pdf page 23).

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fwd: Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Brent Meeker]

An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its 
significance on John Baez's blog.  It agrees with my intuition that the 
mathematical idea of "finite" is not so obvious.


Brent


 Forwarded Message 

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, James  wrote:

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Cris  wrote:


... For any set of axioms, there is a Turing machine which 1) never halts and 
2) that set of axioms cannot prove that it never halts. ...



But don’t you agree that the Halting Problem has a definite truth value? In 
other words, that a given Turing machine (with a given input) either runs 
forever or doesn’t, regardless of our ability to prove it? ...


To answer the question posed, shouldn't we ask if, given any
*particular* TM, there exists *some* consistent system/set of axioms
that can prove whether it halts or not?  I was under the impression
that the answer here was "yes", regardless of any individual
consistent system being unable to tackle the general problem.


The problem is when you have nonstandard natural numbers.  It's
perfectly valid, for instance, to have a Turing machine halt after ω +
3 steps.  You can say, "oh, but we use the unique standard model
defined by the second-order theory", but then the second order theory
has to live in some universe, and there are universes in which what's
uncomputable in your universe can be computable in mine:

http://jdh.hamkins.org/every-function-can-be-computable/
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/computing-the-uncomputable/

So as soon as you move away from "only physically implementable math
is real", then you have do deal with all these other models.
--
Mike
___
math-fun mailing list
math-...@mailman.xmission.com
https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:




Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal  ha 
scritto:



On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> wrote:


IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
interpretation.




The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless 
you agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the 
many superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the 
collapse postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
worlds/states/minds.


Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those 
years, another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not 
possible, in general, to preserve conservation of energy in each 
universe during the split-decoherence, especially in case of 
superposition of states of different energy. In this special case 
energy increase in one universe and decrease in another universe.




That led to the WAY therorem.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's my question: Why isn't it the same?  And even if it's 
not how would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures 
us that it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon 
but that it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum 
computer, before it was erased.  But why would we believe it?  We 
already have these experiments in which we know the weg was 
available and could have been recorded, but was erased.  So what 
is the "consciousness" that adds a secret-sauce to the experiment?


Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by 
calling it "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction 
with the welcher weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence 
-- basically information was extracted that was not restored. Also, 
of course, if the QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on 
the fact that it did anything. How can we believe that it actually 
knew which slit at some point?


Because in Deutsch experiment, not everything has been erased, 
notably the memory that he has known the result. He would say 
something like: I remember doing the measurement and writing it in 
the enveloppe. Now the envelop has been erased, and I can’t remember 
its content, but I definitely remember having known the content.


But two questions remain.  First, the empirical question of whether 
this erasure is enough to restore interference.


I do not see why it would not been enough … in theory. You need only a 
computer able to forget a memory, but not some meta-memory that it has 
recorded a definite result. It isa bit like remembering we have done a 
dream, without being able to remember any of its content.


In practice, that might be very difficult, if not impossible. I am not 
sure.





Second, why should we believe the quantum computer.


In Deutsch proposal, it is a human.


No, it's a conscious quantum computer.  It it were a human or other 
(quasi-) classical instrument decoherence would happen when there was a 
detection of welcher weg and erasure would be impossible.


Brent

And we can repeat the experience with many humans. If they have all 
that feeling of having done a measurement and have obtained a definite 
record without being able to say which one, I think this coule be 
taken as making the MWI more plausible than the Mono-W.




It is not like the classical case in which there is a 
fact-of-them-matter about which slit I observed and I've simply 
forgotten it.  But by quantum erasing the information, there is no 
fact-of-the-matter as to welcher weg, so what can it mean that the 
quantum consciousness once knew it and now remembers something that 
didn't happen.


I don’t think we need a quantum consciousness. It is just the usual 
“comp consciousness”. The consciousness differentiate into “I see up 
in a definite way” + “I see down in a definite way”. Both separates 
the memories of up (resp. down) from the meta-memory “What I saw was 
definite”, and then we erase only the memories of “up” and “down”, 
taking care to not erase the meta-memory, so both consciousness can 
fuse again, with the meta-memory of having see an single outcome, but 
cannot tell which one, and in principle we can get (back) the 
interference of up and down, as the meta-memory is independent of it 
(in principle).


The something did happen (well with MW), only the memories of it has 
been completely erased, like in the usual quantum erasing experience.


Bruno






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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2018 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:



On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


​> ​
/Yes that's hard, perhaps meaningless, question to answer (and I
don't think it's the question Bruno wants answered). /


​
Then its not an experiment, its not a thought experiment, its not even 
a question its just a sequence of words with a question mark at the end.

​



It's a rhetorical question to illustrate a consequence of Everett's 
relative state.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> > interpretation.
> > 
> > > 
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you 
> agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many 
> superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse 
> postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> worlds/states/minds.
> 

Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those years, 
another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not possible, in 
general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe during the 
split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states of different 
energy. In this special case energy increase in one universe and decrease in 
another universe. 

> Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly 
> quagmire of everything, by taking the first person view (what he called 
> subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal 
> that the results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and 
> the irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in 
> principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go 
> outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, 
> is rather difficult.
> 
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). 
> Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a 
> plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com 
> > mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think Schroedinger and his cat bear 
> > > > some responsibility.  In trying to debunk Born's probabilistic 
> > > > interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of observation changing the 
> > > > physical state...even though no one had actually proposed that. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Brent
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > “The idea that the alternate measurement outcomes be 
> > > > not alternatives but all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic 
> > > > to the quantum theorist, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of 
> > > > nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should 
> > > > find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, a sort of a 
> > > > featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we 
> > > > ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he should 
> > > > believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
> > > > behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. . . . 
> > > > according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid 
> > > > jellification only by our perceiving or observing it.”
> > > > 
> > > > -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum 
> > > > Mechanics. Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Assays (Ox 
> > > > Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995).
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Who is Schrodinger referring to? This was written before 
> > > 1957, when Everett published his MWI.? Were other theorists advancing the 
> > > idea that all alternatives are physically manifested in reality? AG
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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 
> > > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com .
> > > Visit this group at 
> > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > > For more options, visit https://grou

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 But that's my question: Why isn't it the same?  And even if it's not how 
 would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that it not 
 only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that it's weg was 
 known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer, before it was 
 erased.  But why would we believe it?  We already have these experiments 
 in which we know the weg was available and could have been recorded, but 
 was erased.  So what is the "consciousness" that adds a secret-sauce to 
 the experiment?
>>> 
>>> Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by calling it 
>>> "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction with the welcher weg 
>>> photon would amount to sufficient decoherence -- basically information was 
>>> extracted that was not restored. Also, of course, if the QC "forgets" what 
>>> it did, how can it report on the fact that it did anything. How can we 
>>> believe that it actually knew which slit at some point?
>> 
>> Because in Deutsch experiment, not everything has been erased, notably the 
>> memory that he has known the result. He would say something like: I remember 
>> doing the measurement and writing it in the enveloppe. Now the envelop has 
>> been erased, and I can’t remember its content, but I definitely remember 
>> having known the content. 
> 
> But two questions remain.  First, the empirical question of whether this 
> erasure is enough to restore interference. 

I do not see why it would not been enough … in theory. You need only a computer 
able to forget a memory, but not some meta-memory that it has recorded a 
definite result. It isa bit like remembering we have done a dream, without 
being able to remember any of its content.

In practice, that might be very difficult, if not impossible. I am not sure.



> Second, why should we believe the quantum computer. 

In Deutsch proposal, it is a human. And we can repeat the experience with many 
humans. If they have all that feeling of having done a measurement and have 
obtained a definite record without being able to say which one, I think this 
coule be taken as making the MWI more plausible than the Mono-W.



> It is not like the classical case in which there is a fact-of-them-matter 
> about which slit I observed and I've simply forgotten it.  But by quantum 
> erasing the information, there is no fact-of-the-matter as to welcher weg, so 
> what can it mean that the quantum consciousness once knew it and now 
> remembers something that didn't happen.

I don’t think we need a quantum consciousness. It is just the usual “comp 
consciousness”. The consciousness differentiate into “I see up in a definite 
way” + “I see down in a definite way”. Both separates the memories of up (resp. 
down) from the meta-memory “What I saw was definite”, and then we erase only 
the memories of “up” and “down”, taking care to not erase the meta-memory, so 
both consciousness can fuse again, with the meta-memory of having see an single 
outcome, but cannot tell which one, and in principle we can get (back) the 
interference of up and down, as the meta-memory is independent of it (in 
principle).

The something did happen (well with MW), only the memories of it has been 
completely erased, like in the usual quantum erasing experience. 

Bruno




> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

​> ​
> *Yes that's hard, perhaps meaningless, question to answer (and I don't
> think it's the question Bruno wants answered).  *
>

​
Then its not an experiment, its not a thought experiment, its not even a
question its just a sequence of words with a question mark at the end.
​

 John K Clark​

 ​

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:50, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/29/2018 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> All computations can be done in a reversible way. The basic idea is that we 
>> can discard memories instead of erasing them, and that idea is coherent with 
>> physics and mechanism.
> 
> Because it is theoretically possible to do computations reversibly, doesn't 
> mean that they are done that way.  It is very difficult in practice, as the 
> developers quantum computers have found.  And even computations that are done 
> reversibly in a quantum computer then do not come to definite results.  We 
> are not conscious of superpositions.  So I stand by my point that 
> consciousness is a classical phenomenon.

No problem with this. I tend to believe that consciousness is classical too. My 
point was just that computation can be made in a reversible way. That has been 
proved by Hao Wang (a logician expert on Gödel) well before quantum 
computations.

And, no one doubt that it is very hard to do in practice, despite quantum 
topology and condensed matter physics is, imo, paving the way to it, but that 
might still take a long time. Electrons does not let themselves to be squeezed 
easily.

Bruno



> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct 
> > > to say there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal 
> > > for measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing 
> > > with time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement 
> > > occurred? AG
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a 
> > "second" measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.
> > 
> > > 
> Right. But isn't there a measurement, and THEN its hypothetical reversal; 
> that is, the attempt to reconstruct its wf by going backward in time? How 
> does space-like separated get into the act? AG
> 

A bit difficult for me. Tentatively, I would say that if temporal ordering 
between measurements of two (let us say space-like) entangled parties is 
indefinite, also temporal ordering between hypothetical reversal of 
measurements of two (let us say space-like) entangled parties is indefinite.

I can imagine another option. The equivalence between non-locality 
(non-separability) and retro-causality.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> interpretation.
> 

The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you agree 
(with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many superposed 
worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse postulate ONLY to 
avoid the proliferation of the alternate worlds/states/minds. Everett is just 
the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of 
everything, by taking the first person view (what he called subjective) of the 
observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal that the results they 
could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is 
purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To 
reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical 
universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult.

But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the collapse 
was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were rightly 
skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have they like 
Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read somewhere. I 
think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an action at a 
distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). Indeed, as you 
all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a plumber than be 
involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.

Bruno




>> Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility.  In trying to 
>>> debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of 
>>> observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually 
>>> proposed that.  
>>> 
>>> Brent 
>>> 
>> 
>> “The idea that the alternate measurement outcomes be not alternatives but 
>> all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to the quantum theorist, 
>> just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, 
>> let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly 
>> turning into a quagmire, a sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all 
>> contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is 
>> strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that 
>> unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave 
>> equation. . . . according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from 
>> rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it.”
>> 
>> -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin 
>> Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Assays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
>> Connecticut, 1995).
>> 
>> 
>> Who is Schrodinger referring to? This was written before 1957, when Everett 
>> published his MWI.? Were other theorists advancing the idea that all 
>> alternatives are physically manifested in reality? AG 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> . 
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> . 
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> . 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2018 12:40 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:

*AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence
to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I
tend strongly to the view that the theory is inherently
irreversible; that is, TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it
implies the arrow of time has its origin at the quantum level.'*

 Maybe.

But ... since we say that there is non-separability between
(position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can
we also say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space*
(i.e. correlation between space-like separated events) but also
*in time* (there is no *causal* ordering)?

Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.



Sure. Just make the measurements at time-like separate events.  It's not 
so interesting because then there could be a local (slower than light) 
hidden variable that would explain the result.



https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248 


*If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say 
there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for 
measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing 
with time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" 
measurement occurred? AG*



Spacelike events have no time order.  Their order varies depending on 
your choice of coordinate system.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".


And the translation is  AG
 

something like  "at some random time, in some random place"

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Apr 2018, at 22:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2018 3:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> From: John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> ​ > ​ many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is erased.   
>>>  ​ Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!
>>> 
>>> We won't know if Deutsch is wrong until the experiment is actually 
>>> performed as I expect it will be sometime in the next few decades, but at 
>>> least he made a stand and you did too,  he predicted interference bands 
>>> will be seen and you predicted there will be no  such bands. So much for 
>>> the idea that the MWI is not testable. ​  
>>> 
>>>  John K Clark
>> 
>> The trouble with this is that we do not know what is actually being tested. 
>> Is it MWI, or is it the idea that a measurement can be reversed?
>> 
>> Bruce
> 
> We know a measurement can be quantum erased.  The question is whether it can 
> be quantum erased while the information showing that it was made is not 
> erased.
> 
> This should be a question that has an answer in Bruno's theory of "comp”.

Well, thanks. But I am not quite sure why you say this. Normally the quantum 
physical explanation should be recovered from “comp”, but we are far from this. 
In arithmetic, the interference must come from the fact that we (the universal 
machine) have no means to distinguish the computations which differs below our 
substitution level. Somehow, if the path of an electron does not change our 
mind state, then we must sum on all path, which leads to an explosion of 
possible histories. Fortunately, the self-referential correctness imposed some 
quantum, or quantum-like, structure on such sets, and intuitively we can hope 
to get the Feynman phase randomisation to diminish the probability of 
“aberrant” histories, but I doubt we can get that directly from the comp 
intuition, and much progress must been made on the "logics of matter” imposed 
by incompleteness (that is the logic of []p&p, []p&<>t, …, with “p” 
semi-computable. I just hope the arithmetical quantum logic(s) to be 
constrained enough so that Gleason theorem will be applicable, in some “normal” 
future(s). If that is shown impossible, then we will have evidences that “comp” 
is false, (or that we are in a Bostrom-like malevolent simulation but this is 
trivial and can be added to any experimental verification (ultimate epicycles).

Bruno




> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:53:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:53:38 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>>
>>
>> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>>
>> *AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try 
>> to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend strongly 
>> to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME 
>> IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its 
>> origin at the quantum level.'* 
>>
>>  Maybe. 
>>
>> But ... since we say that there is non-separability between 
>> (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also 
>> say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation 
>> between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no 
>> *causal* ordering)? 
>>
>> Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248
>>
>>
>> *If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say 
>> there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for 
>> measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with 
>> time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement 
>> occurred? AG*
>>
>> Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a "second" 
>> measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.
>>
>
> *Right. But isn't there a measurement, and THEN its hypothetical reversal; 
> that is, the attempt to reconstruct its wf by going backward in time? How 
> does space-like separated get into the act? AG*
>

*I agree there might be statistical laws that determine outcomes, in the 
sense for example that successive spin UP measurements yielding different 
phases say, for the entangled pairs or triplets or whatever systems are 
formed in the measurement process, But whatever they are, or might be, if 
one follows what happens in general quantum measurements, we have no 
detailed knowledge of specific outcomes. The detailed results are, at least 
according to the CI, irreducibly random except for some statistical laws 
which, as I just said, lack specificity how at least some of the variables 
are set; for example, the position a particle will impact the screen in a 
double slit experiment. So I see no way of time reversing any quantum 
outcomes. What we likely have is a theory, QM, that is, in principle, time 
irreversible. Is this view discussed in the literature? AG*

>
>  
>
>> As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".
>>
>
*And the translation is  AG*
 

> I am inclined to think there is a law of nature (a statistical law of 
>> nature) regulating the behaviour of entangled parties.
>>
>> But I also know that the speed of quantum information (the speed of 
>> quantum influences between entangled parties) could be (in principle!!!) >> 
>> c.
>>
>> Following set of links is, more or less, complete.
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007008
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410025
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
>>
>> -serafino
>>
>> Greenberger: ”Quantum mechanics is magic! It is not black magic, but it i 
>> s nonetheless magic!”
>>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:53:38 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> *AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try 
> to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend strongly 
> to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME 
> IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its 
> origin at the quantum level.'* 
>
>  Maybe. 
>
> But ... since we say that there is non-separability between 
> (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also 
> say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation 
> between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no 
> *causal* ordering)? 
>
> Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248
>
>
> *If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say there 
> is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for 
> measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with 
> time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement 
> occurred? AG*
>
> Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a "second" 
> measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.
>

*Right. But isn't there a measurement, and THEN its hypothetical reversal; 
that is, the attempt to reconstruct its wf by going backward in time? How 
does space-like separated get into the act? AG*
 

> As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".
>
> I am inclined to think there is a law of nature (a statistical law of 
> nature) regulating the behaviour of entangled parties.
>
> But I also know that the speed of quantum information (the speed of 
> quantum influences between entangled parties) could be (in principle!!!) >> 
> c.
>
> Following set of links is, more or less, complete.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007008
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410025
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
>
> -serafino
>
> Greenberger: ”Quantum mechanics is magic! It is not black magic, but it i 
> s nonetheless magic!”
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
> so much at ease).
>

I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.

LC 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence 
> > to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend 
> > strongly to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, 
> > TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its 
> > origin at the quantum level.'
> > 
> >  Maybe.
> > 
> > But ... since we say that there is non-separability between 
> > (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also 
> > say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation 
> > between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no 
> > *causal* ordering)?
> > 
> > Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884 https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248
> > 
> > > 
> If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say there 
> is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for measurements 
> -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with time-like 
> ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement occurred? AG
> 

Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a "second" 
measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties.

As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".

I am inclined to think there is a law of nature (a statistical law of nature) 
regulating the behaviour of entangled parties.

But I also know that the speed of quantum information (the speed of quantum 
influences between entangled parties) could be (in principle!!!) >> c.

Following set of links is, more or less, complete.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007008

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410025

https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795

https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308

-serafino

Greenberger: ”Quantum mechanics is magic! It is not black magic, but it i s 
nonetheless magic!”

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:40:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett  > > wrote: 
> > 
> > A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons or 
> > silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff.. 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076
> >  
> > 
> >  
> 
> Wow! Impressive indeed. And that might plausibly play an important role in 
> unifying the quantum principles with gravitation. 
> Space-time might reduce into entanglement, maybe a sort of Dirac electron 
> dovetailing on itself and entangling with itself would do. 
> Not only there is only one person, playing hide and seek with itself, but 
> there would be only one particle, in the base of the sharable phenomenology 
> of matter! 
> 
> Take this with as much grains of salt you need. That is an impressive 
> success. It should help or at least inspire quantum computing on both the 
> theoretical and experimental issues. 
> 
> Would it help to test one-branch-influence at a distance? I doubt it. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> This is similar to what I said on the thread "entanglement." Entanglement is 
> a global property. Given a set of states with symmetry G, an entanglement 
> between them is a quotient of some of that symmetry, say H so that K = G/H. 
> We may think of the group G as 
> 
> G = K ⋉ H.
> 
> K ⋉ H is the semi-join of the relations K and H, the set of all tuples in K 
> for which there is a tuple in H that are equal.If you have quantum states 
> that are entangled according to symmetries of common tuples the coset is then 
> a "modulo those symmetries." In this way an entanglement of two electrons 
> results in a net scalar field for the singlet state or a vector state for the 
> triplet state and the fermionic properties of the electrons have been removed 
> and replaced with this entangled boson state. This in fact has some bearing 
> on the moduli space for SU(2) gauge field and its relationship to the Dirac 
> operator as found by Atiyah and Singer.
> 
> This is analogous to the standard idea of a base manifold with a principal 
> bundle. For S = M×P, where the transformations on the bundle P leaves the 
> configuration of a vector or tensor field on M invariant. If the bundle 
> structure is SO(3,1) ~ SU(2)×SU(1,1) and S = SO(3,2) then
> 
> AdS_4 = SO(3,2)/SO(3,1)
> 
> indicates how SO(3,1), the gauge-like symmetry of spacetime, is a principal 
> bundle over AdS_4. AdS_4 is the anti-de Sitter spacetime in four dimensions, 
> and we can then see that SO(3,2) is a spacetime with a Lorentz group 
> fibration. 
> 
> Spacetime is global, or at least the CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n is 
> equvalent to the global field content of gravitation in the AdS_n. by very 
> similar means quantum mechanics and entanglements are global. Quantum field 
> theory though is local. There are causality conditions imposed on quantum 
> field theory that eliminate the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. With all 
> the "wonders" of quantum nonlocality it is odd that QFT destroys them, but 
> the nonlocal physics is on scales much smaller and of shorter time than most 
> high energy physics experiments and the range of detectors. However, with 
> black holes there is a lot of Einstein lensing and local Lorentz 
> transformations that make this simplification in QFT not so workable. We 
> therefore have the nonlocality of gravity in the AdS_n bulk and the dual 
> quantum field CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of AdS_n can mix. Nonlocality in the 
> gravitational bulk can be transferred to the CFT. More physically relevant is 
> that for a black hole the entanglement phase of a quantum system can become 
> transferred to the black hole or spacetime physics. In this way we may think 
> of spacetime as "built up" of quantum entanglements. 
> 
> As a result the nonlocal properties of quantum entanglement in curved 
> spacetime can be transformed into local properties, where the entanglement 
> phase is transferred to spacetime or a holographic screen such as on a black 
> hole. It is very similar to the local properties of gauge theory with a 
> principal bundle on a local patch, but where the overlap of these patches 
> determine gauge connections and fields. With what I am working with this is 
> how I see the development of gravitation from quantum fields. Since 
> gravitation is woven with quantum entanglements then for a small number of 
> degrees of freedom gravitation is "quantum," but for a large number it 
> assumes more of a classical-like structure.

It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like structure?  
What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much understanding of 
QM+gra

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> *AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try 
> to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless,  I tend strongly 
> to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME 
> IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE  If so, it implies the arrow of time has its 
> origin at the quantum level.'* 
>
>  Maybe. 
>
> But ... since we say that there is non-separability between 
> (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also 
> say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation 
> between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no 
> *causal* ordering)? 
>
> Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*?  s.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248
>

*If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say there 
is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for 
measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with 
time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement 
occurred? AG* 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.