Re: The problem with physics

[Alan Grayson]

Question for JC; you want to solve the problem of the evolution of the S's 
equation after a measurement.. If you accept that the wf tells us about 
probablilities, why do you insist the probabilities continue to exist after 
measurement, and thus, that S's equation must continue to exist and the wf 
as well? Once a measurement occurs, we're in the realm of actuality, not 
probability. It's like the horse race where you're wondering which horse 
won, when the winner is apparent. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f61aec7f-4503-4027-ae84-e101ac3b9644%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's
> entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions
> were true or not. It turned out they were not.
>

 *>>> But my point was that Bell did not assume counterfactual
 definiteness.*

>>>
>>> >>That was your point?? You just said "*I can provide many references
>>> which claim that Bell did assume counterfactual definiteness*"!
>>>
>>
>> *> You are trolling again.*
>>
>
>  Mr. Kellett, please go fuck yourself.
>

When a person deliberately deletes relevant context in order to ridicule a
statement, it is called trolling.



> >> *All he *[Bell] *assumed was that any possible hidden variables were
 local. So it is locality that is disproven by the experimental results.
 Nothing about counterfactual definiteness or realism, since Bell did not
 assume either of these things*.

>>>
>>> You and Maudlin may believe that but it is certainly a minority
>>> viewpoint:
>>>
>>> *"The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic
>>> assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led
>>> to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments
>>> intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall
>>> within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions"*
>>>
>>
>> *> That is false*.
>>
>
> So Wikipedia says one thing and world class authority on Quantum Mechanics 
> Bruce
> Kellett says the oposite (see reference below). I will let others on this
> list decide for themselves which one is more likely to be correct,
>

I think the real issue here is that you are clearly unable to show how and
where Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, and how that was a crucial
ingredient in the proof of his inequality. When you think about it,
'counterfactual definiteness', as you have defined it in terms of a
particular concept of realism, amounts to nothing more than a particular
hidden variable. Namely, the value of the spin projection that exists
before measurement. So when Bell, in order to derive his inequality,
assumes that any possible hidden variable is local, and that inequality is
violated by experiment, what is ruled out is any form of local hidden
variable.  'Realistic' or 'counterfactually definite' variables are
automatically included. So there is no need for a separate assumption about
such things. Consequently, dropping counterfactual definiteness does not
evade Bell's general conclusion. That is why I can be so definite about
saying that your interpretation is false.

The Wikipedia definition of counterfactual definiteness is fine -- it is
more general than yours, but that does not matter. It is still not
something that Bell assumed, so saying that quantum mechanics, or
many-worlds, or whatever, does not honour counterfactual definiteness has
absolutely no impact ion Bell's result.

Besides, The correct answer in physics, as in anything else, is obtained by
logical argument, not by appeals to authority or citing non-authoratative
Wikipedia articles. The truth is not decided by the majority opinion.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQdKvM9pJCNFa2do-Gz2mtgbR-sH5gmjCXXwVE6F27pfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 1:43:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/22/2019 11:15 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem*
>
> Quantum Physics and Logic 2019 - https://qpl2019.org/ 
>
> https://qpl2019.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/QPL_2019_paper_2.pdf
>
> *We have demonstrated that state update under measurement poses a serious 
> challenge to ψ-epistemic interpretations of quantum theory in the 
> ontological models framework: all currently known ψ-epistemic models for 
> full quantum theory in d ≥ 3 cannot faithfully represent*
> *state update. This runs in direct contrast to the prevailing view that 
> ψ-epistemic models provide a compelling explanation of state update.*
>
>
> *Within the ontological models formalism, epistemic*
> *models can be given a precise mathematical definition*
> *called the ψ-epistemic criterion [22]. This precise criterion *
> *allows the possibility of conclusively ruling out this*
> *type of model. Outside of this framework, it is unlikely*
> *that ψ-epistemic models can be precluded with any kind*
> *of certainty; doxastic interpretations, for example, do not*
> *fit neatly into the ontological models framework and thus*
>
>
> *are not necessarily ruled out by these no-go theorems. *Which is why 
> QBism interprets the formalism as being about the beliefs of the person 
> using it.
>
> Brent
>
>
>


https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

The usual story of Bell’s theorem is that it tells us the world must be 
nonlocal. That there really is spooky action at a distance. So they solved 
one mystery by adding a pretty damn big mystery! What is this nonlocality? 
Give me a full theory of it. My fellow QBists and I instead think that what 
Bell’s theorem really indicates is that *the outcomes of measurements are 
experiences, not revelations of something that’s already there*. 

@philipthrift 

>
>

-- 
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/0adee2af-9e0f-4f47-b4ca-33093a8e3194%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/22/2019 11:15 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 11:59:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/22/2019 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:02 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List > wrote:

On 11/22/2019 6:14 AM, John Clark wrote:

Why does the act of measurement seem to override the
evolution of Schrödinger's wave function, and what exactly
does a "measurement" even mean? Many Worlds is the only
interpretation that can give a credible answer to that question


The epistemological interpretation also gives a credible answer.


Have you ever seen the paper by Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph
(arXiv:.3328)?  They prove a theorem that places limitations
on the viability of a purely epistemic interpretation of the wave
function: "Here we show that any model in which a quantum state
represents mere information about an underlying physical state of
the system, and in which systems prepared independently have
independent physical states, must make predictions which
contradict those of quantum theory."


Which continues:

 "The argument depends on few assumptions. One is that a
system has a “real physical state” – not necessarily com-
pletely described by quantum theory, but objective and
independent of the observer. This assumption only needs
to hold for systems that are isolated, and not entangled
with other systems. Nonetheless, this assumption, or
some part of it, would be denied by instrumentalist ap-
proaches to quantum theory, wherein the quantum state
is merely a calculational tool for making predictions con-
cerning macroscopic measurement outcomes."

There is also this paper, which discusses some loopholes the the
assumptions of the PBR theorem:

Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph quantum no-go theorem
Maximilian Schlosshauer, Arthur Fine
(Submitted on 21 Mar 2012 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2012 (this
version, v3))
Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph introduce a new no-go theorem for
hidden-variables models of quantum theory. We make precise the
class of models targeted and construct equivalent models that
evade the theorem. The theorem requires assumptions for models of
composite systems, which we examine, determining "compactness" as
the weakest assumption needed. On that basis, we demonstrate
results of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. Given compactness and
the relevant class of models, the theorem can be seen as showing
that some measurements on composite systems must have built-in
inefficiencies, complicating its testing.
Comments:    4 pages. v2: tweaked presentation, new title; v3:
minuscule edits to match published version
Subjects:    Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:    Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260404 (2012)
DOI:    10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.260404
Cite as:    arXiv:1203.4779 [quant-ph]
 (or arXiv:1203.4779v3 [quant-ph] for this version)


Brent




*Epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem*

Quantum Physics and Logic 2019 - https://qpl2019.org/

https://qpl2019.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/QPL_2019_paper_2.pdf

/We have demonstrated that state update under measurement poses a 
serious challenge to ψ-epistemic interpretations of quantum theory in 
the ontological models framework: all currently known ψ-epistemic 
models for full quantum theory in d ≥ 3 cannot faithfully represent/
/state update. This runs in direct contrast to the prevailing view 
that ψ-epistemic models provide a compelling explanation of state update./


/Within the ontological models formalism, epistemic//
//models can be given a precise mathematical definition//
//called the ψ-epistemic criterion [22]. This precise criterion //
//allows the possibility of conclusively ruling out this//
//type of model. Outside of this framework, it is unlikely//
//that ψ-epistemic models can be precluded with any kind//
//of certainty; doxastic interpretations, for example, do not//
//fit neatly into the ontological models framework and thus//
//are not necessarily ruled out by these no-go theorems.

/Which is why QBism interprets the formalism as being about the beliefs 
of the person using it.


Brent/
/






@philipthrift.
--
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/60be2bf7-31c9-4397-a61a-ca2c5908586a%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this messa

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> We now know that a measurement is possible without interacting with the
>> thing being measured:
>> Interaction-free measurement
>> 
>> So we could place such a device at one slit in the 2 slit exparament so
>> we would know which slit the photons went through and if we do there
>> will be no interference pattern, but if we turn the device off the
>> interference pattern will come right back. If there is a credible
>> epistemological explanation for this very strange behavior I have never
>> heard it.
>
>


> * > The person who knows the slit detector is on makes a different
> prediction of the screen pattern.*
>

Well sure, but if making correct predictions is all it's interested in then
the "Epistemological Interpretation" is just another name for the "Shut Up
And Calculate Interpretation";  it can offer no explanation as to why the
spot on the photographic plate that the photon decides to land on depends
on what I know or don't know. Why are those two things even connected?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3XiLYLX-95hCQ%2BFo42M3m0-Sqnxw-zuUEnYQUiJJ7g0g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: has evidence pointing to the exisrance of a new boson been found. See arvix link to paper

[Lawrence Crowell]

It is possible that with the E6 gauge model that is breaks into SO(10)×U(1)×
*2*×*2*×*2*×*2*×*2* so this addition U(1) is a massive boson. 

LC

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 8:29:49 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Yes... it does seem analagous to the  muon moment which caused Rabi to 
> utter that quip.
>
> I am always fascinated by evidence that hints at something deeper and 
> outside of the zone of competency of our current best theoretical 
> frameworks and mental superstructures.
>
> An endless re-confirmation of the Standard Model becomes just more of the 
> same. 
>
> Evidence that challenges our base-line assumptions is far more 
> interesting, for it forces us to re-think that which we thought we knew.
>
> -chris
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:42 PM, Lawrence Crowell
> > wrote:
> I guess as I. Rabi said, "Who ordered that?" 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 7:09:31 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle
> A.J. Krasznahorkay 
> 
> , M. Csatlos 
> , L. 
> Csige 
> , J. 
> Gulyas 
> , M. 
> Koszta 
> , B. 
> Szihalmi 
> , J. 
> Timar 
> , D.S. 
> Firak 
> , A. 
> Nagy 
> , N.J. Sas 
> , A. 
> Krasznahorkay 
> 
> (Submitted on 23 Oct 2019)
>
> We observed electron-positron pairs from the electro-magnetically 
> forbidden M0 transition depopulating the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. A 
> peak was observed in their e+e− angular correlations at 115∘ with 7.2σ 
> significance, 
> and could be described by assuming the creation and subsequent decay of a 
> light particle with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20( syst) MeV and ΓX= 
> 3.9×10−5 eV. According to the mass, it is likely the same X17 particle, 
> which we recently suggested [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052501 (2016)] for 
> describing the anomaly observed in 8Be.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1910. 10459 
>
>
> The values for the hypothetical x17 boson that this team observed with the 
> Helium (4) source aligns closely to those observed earlier with the 
> Berylium (8) source.
>
>
> Here is their summary:
>
>  In summary, we have observed 
>
> e+e− pairs from an electro-magnetically forbidden M0 transition 
> depopulating the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. The energy sum of the pairs 
> corresponds to the energy of the transition. The measured e+e−angular 
> correlation for the pairs shows a peak at 115∘, supporting the creation 
> and decay of the X17 particle with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20( sys
> t)MeV. This mass agrees nicely with the value of mXc2=17.01 ±0.16 MeV we 
> previously derived in the 8Be experiment kr16  
> ; kra17  
> ; kra1 
> 9  . The 
> partial width of the X17 particle decay is esimated to be: ΓX= 3.9×10−5 eV. 
> We are expecting more, independent experimental results to come for the X17 
> particle in the coming years.
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d482ea8d-4fd2-472f-a814-bf857aef51ca%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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/d913f46a-a51a-47df-9796-39cce712290c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's
 entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions
 were true or not. It turned out they were not.

>>>
>>> *>>> But my point was that Bell did not assume counterfactual
>>> definiteness.*
>>>
>>
>> >>That was your point?? You just said "*I can provide many references
>> which claim that Bell did assume counterfactual definiteness*"!
>>
>
> *> You are trolling again.*
>

 Mr. Kellett, please go fuck yourself.

>> *All he *[Bell] *assumed was that any possible hidden variables were
>>> local. So it is locality that is disproven by the experimental results.
>>> Nothing about counterfactual definiteness or realism, since Bell did not
>>> assume either of these things*.
>>>
>>
>> You and Maudlin may believe that but it is certainly a minority
>> viewpoint:
>>
>> *"The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic
>> assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led
>> to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments
>> intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall
>> within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions"*
>>
>
> *> That is false*.
>

So Wikipedia says one thing and world class authority on Quantum
Mechanics Bruce
Kellett says the oposite (see reference below). I will let others on this
list decide for themselves which one is more likely to be correct,

Counterfactual definiteness


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ALEW0xxOut%2BVUud3HedA5FfcnL19ik_4h0RE5gEEHWA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The most powerful Gamma Ray Burst ever found

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:00:38 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> In today's issue of Nature it was announced that on January 15 2019 at 
> 3:57:03 am EST the most powerful Gamma Ray Burst ever seen was detected, 
> one photon of those Gamma Rays had as much energy as a trillion photons of 
> visible light, that's about 10 times higher than the previous record. The 
> burst is called GRB 190114C and it's 4.5 billion light years from the 
> Earth.
>
> Teraelectronvolt emission from the γ-ray burst GRB 190114C 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

At TeV energy, which is considerable, these photons could interact at the 
electro-weak scale. This comes closer to understanding something about 
cosmic rays, but cosmic rays can have energy up of a billion billion eV. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fec6d8a-a85b-487f-9431-08712116112f%40googlegroups.com.