Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 4:03:46 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:10, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:57:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 23:49, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:


 On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even 
 be absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.

 Brent

>>>
>>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
>>> more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
>> which-way 
>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits 
>> in 
>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>>
>>
>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, 
>> which would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum 
>> eraser 
>> experiment).
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the 
> SoL. The point is that if there's information available for which-way, 
> even 
> if not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>
>
> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
> detector in the experiment.
>
> Brent
>

 That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
 particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
 emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
 observations being made. AG 

>>>
>>> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
>>> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
>>> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
>>> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
>>> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
>>> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
>>> experimental results demonstrate. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to 
>>> the observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are 
>>> never destroyed, 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer 
>> sees interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
>> exists. How does your model explain this? AG 
>>
>>
>> Take the cat C, assuming it well isolated in its box. The cat is in the 
>> state 1/sqrt(2) (a + d). Now imagine that the box was not so well isolated, 
>> and some particle P interact with it. Let us describe the state of the 
>> particle, in case the cat would ba alive by P_a, and P_d if the cat was 
>> dead. As the cat is in the state a + d, the new state is:
>> 1/sqrt(2) (P_a a + P_d d). OK?
>>
>> If I was ware of that particles, I could in principle obtain interference 
>> pattern from that (pure) superposition. In particular, I could erase the 
>> “memory” of the interaction of the particle, so that I can factor again P 
>> from the state above, and get back the interference available from a + d.
>>
>> But if I cannot track that particle, I am unable to do that, and the 
>> interaction with the particle has destroyed my mean to get back to the a + 
>> d state, and I am confronted with what I will take as a mixed state. It 
>> looks like a collapse, but it is only because the superposition of the cat 
>> has leaked to the environment in a way making impossible for me to get back 
>> to the a + d state. 
>>
>> So, there is no collapse, but the fact that the superposition has leaked 
>> in the 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:10, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:57:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 23:49, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 
 On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
>> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
>> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
> 
> Right.
> 
> Brent
> 
> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
> which-way is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through 
> the slits in the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both 
> slits. AG
 
 OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
 would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
 experiment).
 
 Brent
 
 What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
 The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
 not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>> 
>>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>>> detector in the experiment.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
>>> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
>>> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
>>> observations being made. AG 
>>> 
>>> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
>>> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
>>> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
>>> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
>>> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
>>> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
>>> experimental results demonstrate. AG
>> 
>> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to the 
>> observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are never 
>> destroyed,
>> 
>> 
>> I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer sees 
>> interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
>> exists. How does your model explain this? AG 
> 
> Take the cat C, assuming it well isolated in its box. The cat is in the state 
> 1/sqrt(2) (a + d). Now imagine that the box was not so well isolated, and 
> some particle P interact with it. Let us describe the state of the particle, 
> in case the cat would ba alive by P_a, and P_d if the cat was dead. As the 
> cat is in the state a + d, the new state is:
> 1/sqrt(2) (P_a a + P_d d). OK?
> 
> If I was ware of that particles, I could in principle obtain interference 
> pattern from that (pure) superposition. In particular, I could erase the 
> “memory” of the interaction of the particle, so that I can factor again P 
> from the state above, and get back the interference available from a + d.
> 
> But if I cannot track that particle, I am unable to do that, and the 
> interaction with the particle has destroyed my mean to get back to the a + d 
> state, and I am confronted with what I will take as a mixed state. It looks 
> like a collapse, but it is only because the superposition of the cat has 
> leaked to the environment in a way making impossible for me to get back to 
> the a + d state. 
> 
> So, there is no collapse, but the fact that the superposition has leaked in 
> the environment, without me knowing any details on this, makes the state of 
> the cat equivalent to a mixture of a and d state. FAPP, the cat is either 
> dead or alive after that unknown and untrackable information.
> 
> We see that a measurement is only an entanglement, and we don’t need a 
> 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:57:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Oct 2019, at 23:49, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


 On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even 
>>> be absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
>> more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
> which-way 
> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits 
> in 
> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>
>
> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, 
> which would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
> experiment).
>
> Brent
>

 What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the 
 SoL. The point is that if there's information available for which-way, 
 even 
 if not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG


 What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
 light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
 detector in the experiment.

 Brent

>>>
>>> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
>>> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
>>> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
>>> observations being made. AG 
>>>
>>
>> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
>> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
>> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
>> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
>> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
>> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
>> experimental results demonstrate. AG
>>
>>
>> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to 
>> the observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are 
>> never destroyed, 
>>
>
>
> I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer 
> sees interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
> exists. How does your model explain this? AG 
>
>
> Take the cat C, assuming it well isolated in its box. The cat is in the 
> state 1/sqrt(2) (a + d). Now imagine that the box was not so well isolated, 
> and some particle P interact with it. Let us describe the state of the 
> particle, in case the cat would ba alive by P_a, and P_d if the cat was 
> dead. As the cat is in the state a + d, the new state is:
> 1/sqrt(2) (P_a a + P_d d). OK?
>
> If I was ware of that particles, I could in principle obtain interference 
> pattern from that (pure) superposition. In particular, I could erase the 
> “memory” of the interaction of the particle, so that I can factor again P 
> from the state above, and get back the interference available from a + d.
>
> But if I cannot track that particle, I am unable to do that, and the 
> interaction with the particle has destroyed my mean to get back to the a + 
> d state, and I am confronted with what I will take as a mixed state. It 
> looks like a collapse, but it is only because the superposition of the cat 
> has leaked to the environment in a way making impossible for me to get back 
> to the a + d state. 
>
> So, there is no collapse, but the fact that the superposition has leaked 
> in the environment, without me knowing any details on this, makes the state 
> of the cat equivalent to a mixture of a and d state. FAPP, the cat is 
> either dead or alive after that unknown and untrackable information.
>
> We see that a measurement is only an entanglement, and 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Oct 2019, at 23:49, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
> 
> Brent
> 
> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
 
 Right.
 
 Brent
 
 It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
 literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
 interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
 This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
 namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
 which-way is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through 
 the slits in the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both 
 slits. AG
>>> 
>>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>>> experiment).
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>> 
>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of light 
>> is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or detector in 
>> the experiment.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
>> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that emission 
>> occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any observations 
>> being made. AG 
>> 
>> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
>> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
>> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
>> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
>> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of such 
>> information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
>> experimental results demonstrate. AG
> 
> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to the 
> observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are never 
> destroyed,
> 
> 
> I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer sees 
> interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
> exists. How does your model explain this? AG 

Take the cat C, assuming it well isolated in its box. The cat is in the state 
1/sqrt(2) (a + d). Now imagine that the box was not so well isolated, and some 
particle P interact with it. Let us describe the state of the particle, in case 
the cat would ba alive by P_a, and P_d if the cat was dead. As the cat is in 
the state a + d, the new state is:
1/sqrt(2) (P_a a + P_d d). OK?

If I was ware of that particles, I could in principle obtain interference 
pattern from that (pure) superposition. In particular, I could erase the 
“memory” of the interaction of the particle, so that I can factor again P from 
the state above, and get back the interference available from a + d.

But if I cannot track that particle, I am unable to do that, and the 
interaction with the particle has destroyed my mean to get back to the a + d 
state, and I am confronted with what I will take as a mixed state. It looks 
like a collapse, but it is only because the superposition of the cat has leaked 
to the environment in a way making impossible for me to get back to the a + d 
state. 

So, there is no collapse, but the fact that the superposition has leaked in the 
environment, without me knowing any details on this, makes the state of the cat 
equivalent to a mixture of a and d state. FAPP, the cat is either dead or alive 
after that unknown and untrackable information.

We see that a measurement is only an entanglement, and we don’t need a collapse 
postulate to explain why even an “unknown measurement made by some cosmic 
particle” prevents me to keep the superposition of the cat available to me.

Bruno




> 
> but assuming that the observers are machines and that they obey to QM 
> explains entirely why 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
>> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
> more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>
>
> Right.
>
> Brent
>

 It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
 literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
 interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
 This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
 namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about 
 which-way 
 is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits 
 in 
 the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG


 OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, 
 which would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
 experiment).

 Brent

>>>
>>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>>> detector in the experiment.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
>> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
>> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
>> observations being made. AG 
>>
>
> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
> experimental results demonstrate. AG
>
>
> That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to 
> the observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are 
> never destroyed, 
>


I don't see how this simplifies anything. Sometimes the local observer sees 
interference; sometimes not depending on whether which-way information 
exists. How does your model explain this? AG 

but assuming that the observers are machines and that they obey to QM 
explains entirely why they feel like memorising that the interference have 
disappeared, and why they are locally right about this.

Either the observer obeys QM, and inherits the superposition of what they 
are observing through measurement/entanglement, or QM is false for the 
observer, and we have to wait for some theory of what is an observer, 
together with some criteria for when and where we can use QM.

Bruno




-- 
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/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%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/9facd6dd-7ab5-483a-84c9-83f58b9c7c92%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Oct 2019, at 21:50, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
 absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
 
 Brent
 
 What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
 as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>> 
>>> Right.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
>>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
>>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>> 
>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>> experiment).
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. The 
>> point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if not 
>> observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
> 
> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of light 
> is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or detector in the 
> experiment.
> 
> Brent
> 
> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the particles 
> release IR photons which could be observed, and when that emission occurs, 
> interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any observations being 
> made. AG 
> 
> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, behaves 
> as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and that wave 
> goes through both slits producing interference. When such information exists, 
> even if it isn't used or measured, the interference ceases to exist. 
> Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of such information is 
> sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the experimental results 
> demonstrate. AG

That huge mystery disappears when you apply QM to the particles *and* to the 
observers and all things they interact with. The interferences are never 
destroyed, but assuming that the observers are machines and that they obey to 
QM explains entirely why they feel like memorising that the interference have 
disappeared, and why they are locally right about this.

Either the observer obeys QM, and inherits the superposition of what they are 
observing through measurement/entanglement, or QM is false for the observer, 
and we have to wait for some theory of what is an observer, together with some 
criteria for when and where we can use QM.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> 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/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%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/543C233D-945A-4F86-848F-8600E8479569%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['scerir' via Everything List]

Still breathing. But I was not connected. s.


> Il 31 ottobre 2019 alle 1.44 Alan Grayson  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, 
> or whatever, behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish 
> which-way, and that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When 
> such information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of such 
> information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
> experimental results demonstrate.
> > AG
> > 
> > About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, 
> > see https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026
> > 
> > > 
> I really thought you had passed away. This is good news of course, but 
> bittersweet since I sent a few emails many months ago which weren't responded 
> to. AG 
> 
> > > 
> > s.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> 
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>  .
> 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/954405821.130707.1572503346930%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
> experimental results demonstrate. 
> AG 
>
> About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, see 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026 
>

I really thought you had passed away. This is good news of course, but 
bittersweet since I sent a few emails many months ago which weren't 
responded to. AG 

>
> s. 
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:36:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2019 12:43 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>
>>
>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>> detector in the experiment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> Here is an unconventional approach if via logical variables in stochastic 
> concurrent logic programming:
>
> Timeless Histories 
>  
>  
>
> 0. Given a single source S, a set of possible destinations Dj, j∈J, a set 
> of possible histories historyi, i∈I (pictured as spacetime trajectories) 
> from S to one of the Dj.
>
> 1. Each history has an evolving phase e*i*·θ(t), *i*=√(-1), where t runs 
> from time leaving source to time arriving at destination.
>
> 2. Each history has a hidden (logical) variable* _W (for “weight”):
>
>   historyi(_Wi,e*i*·θi(t))
>
> 3. Each history is a “timeless” entity though (cf. *Timeless Reality*, 
> Victor J. Stenger). There is no “preferred” time direction.
>
> 4. At each destination Dj, the phases of the histories historyi terminating 
> at Dj are summed, the norm is taken, and the result is unified with _Wi.
>
> 5. At the source S, the weights _Wi determine a probability distribution 
> on I: a single history is selected at the source.
>
> Conclusion: With timeless histories, the choice is made in the present 
> (the time the histories leave the source) probabilistically from weights 
> determined in the future (the times the histories reach their destinations).
>  
>
> * Logical variables are distinguished here by a “_” prefix. Not only do 
> they play a “hidden variable role, they introduce nonlocality into 
> logical processes.
>  
>
> cf. A histories perspective on characterizing quantum non-locality 
> 
>
> ~~~
>
> *The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.*
> ― Ludwig Wittgenstein 
> 
>
> CLP (concurrent logic programming) and SCLP (stochastic CLP) might provide 
> a new language of logical processes for physics — nature as written as 
> “billions and billions” of (stochastic) processes. The logical variable 
> would play a role as a hidden variable (a term mentioned in some quantum 
> theory references) because its binding could allow one process to instantly 
> “update” another process separated from it by either space or time (i.e., a 
> program-linguistic analog of spacial or temporal nonlocality).
>
> There is no reason physics has to continue to be written in the 
> mathematical language of a century ago when there are new languages today 
> from the domain of programming.
>
> *Underneath the surface of the classical world lies the hidden births and 
> deaths of quantal histories.*
>
>
> It seems to be a weakness of these history based quantum interpretations 
> that one must specify a "destination"...exactly like assuming a measurement 
> process in CI that is different from the rest of the evolution.
>
> Brent
>


That quantal histories have sources and destinations is a bit odd.



*Figure 6:* Illustration of the many paths an electron can follow through 
the double-slit apparatus

[image: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{quantum_electron_dslit.eps}]

https://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_5/node3.html


@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/e3e1302f-1b37-4d51-9aec-665758d4abdd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['scerir' via Everything List]

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, behaves 
as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and that wave 
goes through both slits producing interference. When such information exists, 
even if it isn't used or measured, the interference ceases to exist. Obviously, 
there's a huge mystery how the existence of such information is sufficient to 
destroy interference, but that's what the experimental results demonstrate.
AG

About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, see 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026
s.


-- 
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/1511461939.132066.1572473501717%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/30/2019 12:43 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at
the SoL. The point is that if there's information available for
which-way, even if not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG


What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the
speed of light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the
screen or detector in the experiment.

Brent



Here is an unconventional approach if via logical variables in 
stochastic concurrent logic programming:



Timeless Histories


0. Given a single source S, a set of possible destinations Dj, j∈J, a 
set of possible histories historyi, i∈I (pictured as spacetime 
trajectories) from S to one of the Dj.


1. Each history has an evolving phase e/i/·θ(t), /i/=√(-1), where t 
runs from time leaving source to time arriving at destination.


2. Each history has a hidden (logical) variable* _W (for “weight”):

historyi(_Wi,e/i/·θi(t))

3. Each history is a “timeless” entity though (cf. /Timeless Reality/, 
Victor J. Stenger). There is no “preferred” time direction.


4. At each destination Dj, the phases of the histories 
historyi terminating at Dj are summed, the norm is taken, and the 
result is unified with _Wi.


5. At the source S, the weights _Wi determine a probability 
distribution on I: a single history is selected at the source.


Conclusion: With timeless histories, the choice is made in the present 
(the time the histories leave the source) probabilistically from 
weights determined in the future (the times the histories reach their 
destinations).


* Logical variables are distinguished here by a “_” prefix. Not only 
do they play a “hidden variable role, they introduce nonlocality into 
logical processes.


cf. A histories perspective on characterizing quantum non-locality 



                ~~~

/The limits of my language mean the limits of my world./
― Ludwig Wittgenstein 



CLP (concurrent logic programming) and SCLP (stochastic CLP) might 
provide a new language of logical processes for physics — nature as 
written as “billions and billions” of (stochastic) processes. The 
logical variable would play a role as a hidden variable (a term 
mentioned in some quantum theory references) because its binding could 
allow one process to instantly “update” another process separated from 
it by either space or time (i.e., a program-linguistic analog of 
spacial or temporal nonlocality).


There is no reason physics has to continue to be written in the 
mathematical language of a century ago when there are new languages 
today from the domain of programming.


/Underneath the surface of the classical world lies the hidden births 
and deaths of quantal histories./




It seems to be a weakness of these history based quantum interpretations 
that one must specify a "destination"...exactly like assuming a 
measurement process in CI that is different from the rest of the evolution.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/806286a8-707a-1c04-e246-ce9434bdcbac%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>
> Brent
>

 What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
 more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 


 Right.

 Brent

>>>
>>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
>>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
>>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>>> experiment).
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>
>>
>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>> detector in the experiment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
> observations being made. AG 
>

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
experimental results demonstrate. 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/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 11:58, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:50 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2019, at 21:17, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>> Keep in mind that the wave I have been referring to, is a probability wave, 
>> not a physical wave. AG 
> 
> The whole “problem" is there. The amplitude of probability wave acts like if 
> it was a physical thing. If not, there would not be any physical wave 
> interference for single particle.
> 
> Now why on earth would you say that?

It is QM.


> The probability wave is not "a physical thing", so there is no collapse 
> problem. It is epistemic, not ontological.

I can agree, but how could something epistemological interfere with something 
physical (unless you put the whole physical in the epistemological, in which 
case this is coherent with Mechanism).



> Probability waves can interfere just as easily as can physical waves.

Not if the probabilities describes the observer’s ignorance. Or you believe 
that consciousness can act on matter?



> Or do you not really believe in the  additivity of arithmetic?

I have no problem with this. The problem is that without the many-worlds, 
interference would depend on the state of an observer.

I have some difficulties to interpret your interpretation. If up + down is pure 
epistemology, does that means that the particles is really just up or just down 
without us knowing? Would that not make it into a mixed state, without any 
interference possible?

Either the wave is purely epistemological, but then consciousness acts directly 
on matter, and that is incompatible with Mechanism.
Or the wave describes a physical state of affair, and we get the relative 
states, with its many relative histories being “physically realised”.

Bruno





> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSFseVwuRn%2BdQtDCkTyf9pNU6UfgfyQrH6hdSCqiW2Zvg%40mail.gmail.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/743528AC-03FF-4580-8BAF-2CDF2577D762%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 6:18:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
 absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.

 Brent

>>>
>>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
>>> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>>
>>
>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>> experiment).
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>
>
> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
> detector in the experiment.
>
> Brent
>


Here is an unconventional approach if via logical variables in stochastic 
concurrent logic programming:

Timeless Histories 

 

0. Given a single source S, a set of possible destinations Dj, j∈J, a set 
of possible histories historyi, i∈I (pictured as spacetime trajectories) 
from S to one of the Dj.

1. Each history has an evolving phase e*i*·θ(t), *i*=√(-1), where t runs 
from time leaving source to time arriving at destination.

2. Each history has a hidden (logical) variable* _W (for “weight”):

  historyi(_Wi,e*i*·θi(t))

3. Each history is a “timeless” entity though (cf. *Timeless Reality*, 
Victor J. Stenger). There is no “preferred” time direction.

4. At each destination Dj, the phases of the histories historyi terminating 
at Dj are summed, the norm is taken, and the result is unified with _Wi.

5. At the source S, the weights _Wi determine a probability distribution on 
I: a single history is selected at the source.

Conclusion: With timeless histories, the choice is made in the present (the 
time the histories leave the source) probabilistically from weights 
determined in the future (the times the histories reach their destinations).
 

* Logical variables are distinguished here by a “_” prefix. Not only do 
they play a “hidden variable role, they introduce nonlocality into logical 
processes.
 

cf. A histories perspective on characterizing quantum non-locality 


~~~

*The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.*
― Ludwig Wittgenstein 


CLP (concurrent logic programming) and SCLP (stochastic CLP) might provide 
a new language of logical processes for physics — nature as written as 
“billions and billions” of (stochastic) processes. The logical variable 
would play a role as a hidden variable (a term mentioned in some quantum 
theory references) because its binding could allow one process to instantly 
“update” another process separated from it by either space or time (i.e., a 
program-linguistic analog of spacial or temporal nonlocality).

There is no reason physics has to continue to be written in the 
mathematical language of a century ago when there are new languages today 
from the domain of programming.

*Underneath the surface of the classical world lies the hidden births and 
deaths of quantal histories.*

@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/db69fa15-82f2-4855-aff6-8a828ed72ffb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
 absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.

 Brent

>>>
>>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
>>> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>>
>>
>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>> experiment).
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>
>
> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
> detector in the experiment.
>
> Brent
>

That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
observations being made. 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/be438609-7c36-4ed6-bf88-03b716e0c1c4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They
need not even be absorbed, but could simply fly off to
infinity.

Brent


What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed,
more and more, as they get hotter, but without any
observations? AG


Right.

Brent


It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too
literally), where the particles send out information of whether
interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's
observed. This could fit into my model of superposition with some
modification; namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if
information about which-way is available, interference is
destroyed. And what goes through the slits in the absence of
these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG


OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling,
which would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum
eraser experiment).

Brent


What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the 
SoL. The point is that if there's information available for which-way, 
even if not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG


What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
detector in the experiment.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/070a-d10c-d812-7e44-62065a434793%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
>>> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
>> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>
>
> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
> experiment).
>
> Brent
>

What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
not observed, the interference is destroyed. 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/9befcb44-c66e-4be6-be87-15b7b4ad1f5f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need
not even be absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.

Brent


What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more
and more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG


Right.

Brent


It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's 
observed. This could fit into my model of superposition with some 
modification; namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if 
information about which-way is available, interference is destroyed. 
And what goes through the slits in the absence of these conditions is 
a wave going through both slits. AG


OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
experiment).


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/debc623d-37ea-3129-e2d3-66af86bfed97%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
>> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, 
> as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 
>
>
> Right.
>
> Brent
>

It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. 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/4c12f952-8c5d-417d-b52e-c760679bce79%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not
even be absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.

Brent


What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG


Right.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04e057f4-b08e-8774-dbff-a1e5a0672e46%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 9:38 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/2019 3:27 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
>>> anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on 
>>> an ill defined process called "looking at it".
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be 
>> an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the 
>> interference disappear? 
>>
>>
>> But also if you don't observe them, which is not "like any other 
>> particle".  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> That's not exactly true. You observe their IR emissions, so you're 
> observing them indirectly. 
>
>
> What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>
> Brent
>

What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and more, as 
they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 

>
> It's as if they're telling the observer which slit they go through, and 
> viola, the interference disappears. AG 
>
> I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit 
>> experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation of 
>> interference? 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9541809d-aff8-418f-9d6f-a5cc655168dc%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/09f75673-c2e9-4d6c-aa4d-9093b67d3e0a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/29/2019 9:38 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/28/2019 3:27 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern
disappears anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you
cite is that it depends on an ill defined process called
"looking at it".

Brent


Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It
can be an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60,
won't the interference disappear?


But also if you don't observe them, which is not "like any other
particle".

Brent


That's not exactly true. You observe their IR emissions, so you're 
observing them indirectly.


What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.


Brent

It's as if they're telling the observer which slit they go through, 
and viola, the interference disappears. AG



I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit
experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the
manifestation of interference? 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/9541809d-aff8-418f-9d6f-a5cc655168dc%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/9afe7a64-8329-28d1-a9ee-e26c466374a2%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2019 3:27 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
>> anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on 
>> an ill defined process called "looking at it".
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be 
> an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the 
> interference disappear? 
>
>
> But also if you don't observe them, which is not "like any other 
> particle".  
>
> Brent
>
>
That's not exactly true. You observe their IR emissions, so you're 
observing them indirectly. It's as if they're telling the observer which 
slit they go through, and viola, the interference disappears. AG 

I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit 
> experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation of 
> interference? 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/9541809d-aff8-418f-9d6f-a5cc655168dc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:50 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 28 Oct 2019, at 21:17, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that the wave I have been referring to, is a probability
> wave, not a physical wave. AG
>
>
> The whole “problem" is there. The amplitude of probability wave acts like
> if it was a physical thing. If not, there would not be any physical wave
> interference for single particle.
>

Now why on earth would you say that? The probability wave is not "a
physical thing", so there is no collapse problem. It is epistemic, not
ontological. Probability waves can interfere just as easily as can physical
waves. Or do you not really believe in the  additivity of arithmetic?

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/CAFxXSLSFseVwuRn%2BdQtDCkTyf9pNU6UfgfyQrH6hdSCqiW2Zvg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Oct 2019, at 21:17, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 5:37:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Oct 2019, at 22:15, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time 
> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't 
> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
> condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
> that the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
> think? AG
> 
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
 
 You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
 Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
 know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
 decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
 is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
 
 Brent
 
 I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have 
 in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>> 
>>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can 
>>> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.  
>>> One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is 
>>> the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted, 
>>> then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities 
>>> and renormalize the wave function.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
>>> after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
>>> if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>> 
>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
>> Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat has 
>> "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still a 
>> superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what you 
>> know about the system.
>> 
>> Please remind me; if the wf is a superposition before the box is opened, 
>> what exactly does this mean? That is, what does interference mean in this 
>> circumstance? TIA, AG
>> 
>> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what superposition 
>> and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>> 
>> 
>> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
>> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
>> meanings.
>> 
>> @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the same 
>> answers, so what difference does it make?
>> 
>> The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>> associated with every history leading to the event.
>> 
>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. This item builds the 
>> concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum interference, 
>> directly into the formulation. Specifying that the probability for an event 
>> is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made from complex numbers, allows 
>> for negative, positive and intermediate interference effects. This part of 
>> the formulation thus builds the description of experiments such as the 
>> two-slit experiment directly into the formulation. A history is a sequence 
>> of fundamental processes leading to the the event in question. 
>> 
>> http://muchomas.lassp.cornell.edu/8.04/Lecs/lec_FeynmanDiagrams/node3.html 
>>  
>> 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2019 3:27 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
>> anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on 
>> an ill defined process called "looking at it".
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be 
> an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the 
> interference disappear? 
>
>
> But also if you don't observe them, which is not "like any other 
> particle".  
>
> Brent
>

It's not obvious that my interpretation of superposition is wrong. The C60 
molecules are emitting IR photons, which greatly complicates the situation. 
I am undecided about the consequences. AG 

>
> I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit 
> experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation of 
> interference? 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/8b4916a6-acad-4d27-90d3-cd2a893289ef%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 5:37:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2019, at 22:15, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
>> time 
>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>> don't 
>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
>> initial 
>> condition where the probability of one component of the 
>> superposition, that 
>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>> think? AG
>>
>
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
> cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>
>
> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
> point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is 
> closed you 
> don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
> superposition of 
> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
> so it 
> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>
> Brent
>

 I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
 decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
 alive 
 and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 


 It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
 you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
 envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
 question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  
 Once 
 envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
 the 
 other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
>>> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
>>> in 
>>> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
>>> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
>>> cat 
>>> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
>>> still 
>>> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
>>> you 
>>> know about the system.
>>>
>>
>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does 
>> *interference* mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>


 All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
 interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
 meanings.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
>> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>>
>> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>>
>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
>> the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
>> interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
>> probability for an event is given as the 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/28/2019 3:27 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears
anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it
depends on an ill defined process called "looking at it".

Brent


Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can 
be an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the 
interference disappear?


But also if you don't observe them, which is not "like any other particle".

Brent

I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit 
experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation 
of interference? 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/1bed371e-89f2-b691-48c4-e945dc1ad2d7%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Oct 2019, at 11:27, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 1:11:12 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/27/2019 8:18 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:47:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 
 
 On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
> It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, 
> when not observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
> interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle.
 
 There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is changing 
 around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is in your 
 interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems 
 to jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to 
 impose a medieval idea of substance.
 
 And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has two 
 positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits?
>>> 
>>> The wf goes thru both slits.
>>> 
>>> That's more or less what I said. AG 
>>> 
 Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can go 
 through both slits, but not particles.
>>> 
>>> In your classical world view.
>>> 
>>> Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle" as a wave 
>>> when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation explains why 
>>> interference disappears in which-way experiment,
>> 
>> Your interpretation being what exactly?  Does it work for the Buckyball C60 
>> experiment?
>> 
>> It's just an application of the wave-particle duality. When you're not 
>> looking, it acts like a wave (and goes through both slits without a baffling 
>> contradiction if it's considered a particle); and when you're looking it 
>> acts like a particle, and hence goes through one slit or the other, and no 
>> interference. I expect it would work for C60. The main advance represented 
>> by C60 is the demonstration of interference for a quasi-macro object. AG 
> 
> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears anyway.  
> The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on an ill 
> defined process called "looking at it".
> 
> Brent
> 
> Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be an 
> instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the interference 
> disappear?

They will disappear from your first person perspective. They will not disappear 
from the 3p more complete perspective, which will explain also why you will 
believe that the interference seems to have disappeared from your perspective.

Bruno



> I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a slit experiment. 
> Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation of interference? 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/78d72d0f-0473-40cc-94ae-a369c0b958c9%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/510FA101-3C68-4057-AA13-B4B1C5DB9E78%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Oct 2019, at 06:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
>> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>> 
>> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
>> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
>> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
>> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when he 
>> said no one understands QM? AG
> 
> You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over and 
> above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the right answer. 
>  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or Schlosshauer don't 
> understand?  

The mind body problem.


> 
> Brent
> I have given you a proof.  I'm not obliged to give you an understanding.--- 
> Oliver Heaviside

The understanding is an argument that the theory in which the proof is given is 
consistent. We ask for a model, or a reality making sense of the axioms.

Bruno




>
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/7a49b3bd-9c51-914e-6947-7348258ae5fe%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/56C083F4-7B00-43A2-AFB6-4702B3BB9FFC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Oct 2019, at 06:42, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but we 
>> don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
> 
> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to describe and 
> predict it.  What more do you want…

Some interpretation of those mathematics so that we can make sense of it. But 
we do almost have it; it is the many-histories close to Everett’s formulation 
(QM + the assumption that the physicist obeys to QM).



> something that would convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature 
> doesn't need to adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around.

Indeed. But we can do metaphysics rigorously, explain why Aristotle’s theory 
does not work, and still continue to try to figure out what is reality. If not, 
we become instrumentalist and abandon the quest of knowledge. It is not because 
our older notion of reality do not work that there is no new one. In this case 
the new one is even a consequence of a more general assumption than Quantum 
Mechanics. Just Mechanics alone is enough. But yes, reality get very different 
than 1500 years of literally imposed Aristotelianism suggested.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f19554a3-1876-b540-23c3-2fde062eb2c3%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/8BA14420-D8E7-4C33-8068-64E7847CFBC1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Oct 2019, at 04:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/26/2019 7:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an electron 
>> impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a particular 
>> location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of two slits. 
>> Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. Now imagine 
>> another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with probability 
>> amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 
>> represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, we must imagine 
>> the waves "interfering" even though they are not simultaneous, and the 
>> probability of that event with two possible paths, is the absolute value 
>> squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
> 
> In a Young's slit experiment the particles interfere with themselves.  The 
> interference pattern appears even if the electrons are sent one per hour.  
> That's what makes it strange,

Exactly. When I was young, most quantum physicists did not believe we could get 
an interference pattern with single particles, like de Borglie thought 
initially that all superposition where microscopic. They were refuted on this, 
and the mystery of QM is that it works apparently at all scales. The 
decoherence theory explains only why we cannot see them directly.

Bruno


> since it violates the classical "logic" that a thing cannot be two different 
> places at the same time.
> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18d5626b-c6db-0e43-686a-a5edf6957fc9%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/FA4D68BC-BB75-4771-9B45-B20921D41490%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Oct 2019, at 22:15, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
 the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval, 
 assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
 decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
 where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat 
 is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
 
 Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
 radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
 in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>> 
>>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
>>> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
>>> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
>>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
>>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have 
>>> in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>> 
>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can 
>> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.  One 
>> way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is the 
>> cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted, then 
>> the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities and 
>> renormalize the wave function.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
>> after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
>> if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
> 
> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
> Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat has 
> "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still a 
> superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what you 
> know about the system.
> 
> Please remind me; if the wf is a superposition before the box is opened, what 
> exactly does this mean? That is, what does interference mean in this 
> circumstance? TIA, AG
> 
> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what superposition 
> and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
> 
> 
> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and interpretation 
> of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous meanings.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
> 
> 
> 
> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the same 
> answers, so what difference does it make?
> 
> The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the complex 
> magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum amplitude Q 
> associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  associated with every 
> history leading to the event.
> 
> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. This item builds the 
> concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum interference, 
> directly into the formulation. Specifying that the probability for an event 
> is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made from complex numbers, allows 
> for negative, positive and intermediate interference effects. This part of 
> the formulation thus builds the description of experiments such as the 
> two-slit experiment directly into the formulation. A history is a sequence of 
> fundamental processes leading to the the event in question. 
> 
> http://muchomas.lassp.cornell.edu/8.04/Lecs/lec_FeynmanDiagrams/node3.html 
>  
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> Sorry, I really don't get it.

Nobody does, really. Even if the mechanist know the why, the how will still 
delude us for long. Like many said; to understand QM is to understand that 
there is a big metaphysical problem there.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 9:27 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 1:11:12 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears
>> anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on
>> an ill defined process called "looking at it".
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be
> an instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the
> interference disappear? I assume it would if it behaves like any other
> particle in a slit experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the
> manifestation of interference? AG
>

The significant thing about the C60 experiments is that which-way
information is given by the IR photons that the bucky balls emit when they
are heated. When the IR wavelength becomes shorter as the temperature
increases, eventually the typical photon wavelength is short enough to
distinguish which slit the atom went through. This means that which-way
information is made available, even if it is never detected! So no
measurement or observation of these IR photons is necessary. What is found
is that as the temperature of the atoms increases, the interference pattern
is gradually washed out (even at lower temps, some IR photons are of short
enough wavelength to distinguish which slit was traversed.) This means that
some of the atoms at that temperature show interference, and some do not.
So the interference pattern gradually disappears as the temperature is
increased.

This is actually one of the most significant two-slit interference
experiments ever performed. Once you understand what is going on there can
be no more confusion over what interference means, or over how small an
interaction (emission of a single IR photon) is necessary for decoherence
to occur.

This is not really a quantum erasure experiment because it is essentially
impossible to quantum erase the information in the IR photons -- they can
hit the wall, or vanish into space, in either case the which-way
information still exists in the universe, even if totally scrambled, or
undetected by anything or any one. The  significance of this experiment is
so great that it is no wonder that Brent keeps referring to it.

Ponder the lessons here.

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/CAFxXSLQb-ABzW9nDGqOdWaC8Yypmo-qa0h82F2krLH6F_stBCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 1:11:12 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/27/2019 8:18 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:47:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit 
 experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. 
 Rather, when *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both 
 slits, and interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a 
 particle. 


 There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is changing 
 around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is in your 
 interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems 
 to 
 jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to 
 impose a medieval idea of substance.

>>>
>>> And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has 
>>> two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits? 
>>>
>>>
>>> The wf goes thru both slits.
>>>
>>
>> That's more or less what I said. AG 
>>
>>>
>>> Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can 
>>> go through both slits, but not particles. 
>>>
>>>
>>> In your classical world view.
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle" as a 
>> wave when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation explains why 
>> interference disappears in which-way experiment, 
>>
>>
>> Your interpretation being what exactly?  Does it work for the Buckyball 
>> C60 experiment?
>>
>
> It's just an application of the wave-particle duality. When you're not 
> looking, it acts like a wave (and goes through both slits without a 
> baffling contradiction if it's considered a particle); and when you're 
> looking it acts like a particle, and hence goes through one slit or the 
> other, and no interference. I expect it would work for C60. The main 
> advance represented by C60 is the demonstration of interference for a 
> quasi-macro object. AG 
>
>
> But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
> anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends on 
> an ill defined process called "looking at it".
>
> Brent
>

Let me introduce you to a familiar concept in QM; observation! It can be an 
instrument as Feynman states. If you OBSERVE a C60, won't the interference 
disappear? I assume it would if it behaves like any other particle in a 
slit experiment. Isn't the notable thing about a C60, is the manifestation 
of interference? 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/78d72d0f-0473-40cc-94ae-a369c0b958c9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/27/2019 8:18 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:47:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Here's what I understand about an electron in the
double slit experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations
simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when *not*
observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both
slits, and interferes with itself. When observed, it
behaves as a particle. 


There's your problem.  You're insisting that the
electron is changing around because it "behaves"
differently.  The behavior is in your interpretation. 
It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems
to jump around in ontology is the fault of your
interpretation trying to impose a medieval idea of
substance.


And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the
electron has two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes
through both slits?


The wf goes thru both slits.


That's more or less what I said. AG



Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim?
Waves can go through both slits, but not particles.


In your classical world view.


Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle"
as a wave when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation
explains why interference disappears in which-way experiment,


Your interpretation being what exactly?  Does it work for the
Buckyball C60 experiment?


It's just an application of the wave-particle duality. When you're not 
looking, it acts like a wave (and goes through both slits without a 
baffling contradiction if it's considered a particle); and when you're 
looking it acts like a particle, and hence goes through one slit or 
the other, and no interference. I expect it would work for C60. The 
main advance represented by C60 is the demonstration of interference 
for a quasi-macro object. AG


But nobody looks at the C60s.  The interference pattern disappears 
anyway.  The trouble with the interpretation you cite is that it depends 
on an ill defined process called "looking at it".


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/414d7eda-6b3a-cbd8-1445-f27471813593%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/27/2019 3:41 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Here's what I understand about an electron in the double
slit experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations
simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when *not* observed it
behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and interferes
with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. 


There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is
changing around because it "behaves" differently.  The
behavior is in your interpretation.  It's not in the
mathematics.  So the fact that it seems to jump around in
ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to impose
a medieval idea of substance.


And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron
has two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both
slits?


The wf goes thru both slits.


That's more or less what I said. AG



Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim?
Waves can go through both slits, but not particles.


In your classical world view.


Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle" as a 
wave when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation explains why 
interference disappears in which-way experiment,


Your interpretation being what exactly?  Does it work for the Buckyball 
C60 experiment?


Brent

but what the hell, we can forget about that, and adopt an 
unintelligible pov.  AG



Brent


And here I thought you'd appreciate my interpretation. AG




Now please explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment,
applying decoherence before and after it completes, while
the box is closed. TIA, AG


There's in no "before and after it completes".  The process
of transition from undecayed to decayed is continuous, at
least that's the MWI picture.  When you open the box (or even
earlier) your brain becomes correlated, via decoherence, with
one or the other of the branches of the wf.

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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caa65f7b-2cbd-4597-a557-c24adaff5cba%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/e1c3d3a1-e0f3-448c-b5f6-fba3a09ebd2a%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/78a1517b-fbcc-5fe4-fb03-e5be054f8337%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
>> It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when 
>> *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
>> interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. 
>>
>>
>> There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is changing 
>> around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is in your 
>> interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems to 
>> jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to 
>> impose a medieval idea of substance.
>>
>
> And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has two 
> positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits? 
>
>
> The wf goes thru both slits.
>

That's more or less what I said. AG 

>
> Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can go 
> through both slits, but not particles. 
>
>
> In your classical world view.
>

Not necessarily classical, but rather interpreting the "particle" as a wave 
when we don't look; a quantum pov. My interpretation explains why 
interference disappears in which-way experiment, but what the hell, we can 
forget about that, and adopt an unintelligible pov.  AG 

>
> Brent
>
> And here I thought you'd appreciate my interpretation. AG 
>
>>
>>
>> Now please explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying 
>> decoherence before and after it completes, while the box is closed. TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> There's in no "before and after it completes".  The process of transition 
>> from undecayed to decayed is continuous, at least that's the MWI picture.  
>> When you open the box (or even earlier) your brain becomes correlated, via 
>> decoherence, with one or the other of the branches of the wf.
>>
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caa65f7b-2cbd-4597-a557-c24adaff5cba%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/e1c3d3a1-e0f3-448c-b5f6-fba3a09ebd2a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/27/2019 2:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit
experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a
particle. Rather, when *not* observed it behaves like a wave,
goes through both slits, and interferes with itself. When
observed, it behaves as a particle. 


There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is
changing around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is
in your interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact
that it seems to jump around in ontology is the fault of your
interpretation trying to impose a medieval idea of substance.


And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has 
two positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits?


The wf goes thru both slits.

Where does the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can 
go through both slits, but not particles.


In your classical world view.

Brent


And here I thought you'd appreciate my interpretation. AG




Now please explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment,
applying decoherence before and after it completes, while the box
is closed. TIA, AG


There's in no "before and after it completes".  The process of
transition from undecayed to decayed is continuous, at least
that's the MWI picture.  When you open the box (or even earlier)
your brain becomes correlated, via decoherence, with one or the
other of the branches of the wf.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caa65f7b-2cbd-4597-a557-c24adaff5cba%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/0f5fbeb0-6908-f22a-88d0-7977bf8fbfb2%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
> It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when 
> *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
> interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. 
>
>
> There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is changing 
> around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is in your 
> interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems to 
> jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to 
> impose a medieval idea of substance.
>

And your interpretation is that the mathematics says the electron has two 
positions or paths simultaneously, and goes through both slits? Where does 
the mathematics assert that unintelligible claim? Waves can go through both 
slits, but not particles. And here I thought you'd appreciate my 
interpretation. AG 

>
>
> Now please explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying 
> decoherence before and after it completes, while the box is closed. TIA, AG
>
>
> There's in no "before and after it completes".  The process of transition 
> from undecayed to decayed is continuous, at least that's the MWI picture.  
> When you open the box (or even earlier) your brain becomes correlated, via 
> decoherence, with one or the other of the branches of the wf.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caa65f7b-2cbd-4597-a557-c24adaff5cba%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/26/2019 11:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit 
experiment. It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a 
particle. Rather, when *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes 
through both slits, and interferes with itself. When observed, it 
behaves as a particle. 


There's your problem.  You're insisting that the electron is changing 
around because it "behaves" differently.  The behavior is in your 
interpretation.  It's not in the mathematics.  So the fact that it seems 
to jump around in ontology is the fault of your interpretation trying to 
impose a medieval idea of substance.



Now please explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying 
decoherence before and after it completes, while the box is closed. 
TIA, AG


There's in no "before and after it completes".  The process of 
transition from undecayed to decayed is continuous, at least that's the 
MWI picture.  When you open the box (or even earlier) your brain becomes 
correlated, via decoherence, with one or the other of the branches of 
the wf.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9aa7468f-0d28-d9b4-71a0-ae52df757376%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:43:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:31:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's 
>>> intelligible? You can get the same results in the Heisenberg 
>>> Picture, but 
>>> to understand "interference" you need to at least start with waves. 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
>> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the 
>> root of your misunderstanding.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>


 I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
 "what does *interference* mean".

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>>> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and 
>>> instead 
>>> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>>> understand "interference". AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>> and then generalize it.*
>>
>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as 
> Schroedinger's 
> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". 
> AG 
>

 Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
 electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
 particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
 two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
 Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
 probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
 phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
 we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
 simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, 
 is 
 the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 

>>>
>>> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different 
>>> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One 
>>> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one 
>>> path is considered. AG
>>>
>>
>> My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply 
>> the existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. 
>> One needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the 
>> probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the 
>> probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle 
>> can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to 
>> understand how that can be. AG  
>>
>
> Now for the hard questions; in the case of S's cat, the wf = 
> |alive>|source undecayed> + |dead>|source decayed>. if each wf component is 
> considered as a wave, what are the probability amplitudes of each possible 
> outcome before the box is opened? And what is the wf after decoherence has 
> occurred but before the box is opened? AG 
>
>>  

>>>
I don't quite follow the radium with the cat in the box, or whatever it is, 
but this should be the same:

Suppose there is a computer running in a box with the cat, and the computer 
is hooked to a device that will release poison gas, and the computer has a 
hardware 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 10:07:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 7:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
> > electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
> > particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either 
> > of two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through 
> > slit1. Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a 
> > screen with probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but 
> > through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or 
> > paths for the same Event, we must imagine the waves "interfering" even 
> > though they are not simultaneous, and the probability of that event 
> > with two possible paths, is the absolute value squared of the sum of 
> > phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>
> In a Young's slit experiment the particles interfere with themselves.  
> The interference pattern appears even if the electrons are sent one per 
> hour.  That's what makes it strange, since it violates the classical 
> "logic" that a thing cannot be two different places at the same time. 
>
> Brent 
>



"the particles interfere with themselves"

One can write that (English) expression above, and many do, but others

*Hilbert Spaces from Path Integrals*
https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589

It is shown that a Hilbert space can be constructed for a quantum system 
starting from a framework in which histories are fundamental. The 
Decoherence Functional provides the inner product on this "History Hilbert 
space". It is also shown that the History Hilbert space is the standard 
Hilbert space in the case of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.


might write instead "a particle's histories interfere".

It may not sound like a distinction to some, but to others it may.

@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/3f5d946b-0d57-4e74-846b-1cce890077a5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:43:23 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:55:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
>>> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>>>
>>> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
>>> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
>>> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
>>> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>
>> That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when 
>> he said no one understands QM? AG
>>
>>
>> You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over 
>> and above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the right 
>> answer.  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or Schlosshauer 
>> don't understand?  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
> It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when 
> *not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
> interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. Now please 
> explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying decoherence before 
> and after it completes, while the box is closed. TIA, AG
>

Since observing the electron forces it into its particle form, the 
interference is destroyed in the which-way experiment. I am not sure what 
how those physicists interpret the double slit experiment, but I can make a 
good guess that Carroll adopts the most unintelligible interpretation; 
namely, that the particle is in multiple locations simultaneously. 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/7c6d60ea-f92e-479c-bd6d-c05f75107589%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:55:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
>> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>>
>> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
>> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
>> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
>> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when 
> he said no one understands QM? AG
>
>
> You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over and 
> above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the right 
> answer.  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or Schlosshauer 
> don't understand?  
>
> Brent
>

Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when 
*not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. Now please 
explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying decoherence before 
and after it completes, while the box is closed. TIA, 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/935db25b-71fa-489a-af54-2ce3df7b0d8a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths
simultaneously, but
> we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG

Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to
describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that
would
convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to
adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around.

Brent


That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong 
when he said no one understands QM? AG


You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over 
and above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the 
right answer.  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or 
Schlosshauer don't understand?


Brent
I have given you a proof.  I'm not obliged to give you an understanding.
  --- Oliver Heaviside

--
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/7a49b3bd-9c51-914e-6947-7348258ae5fe%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>
> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>
> Brent 
>

That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when he 
said no one understands QM? 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/010edbd9-9888-4f01-96a3-90f26b67340d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:31:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
>> understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
> of your misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
 conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
>>> "what does *interference* mean".
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and 
>> instead 
>> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>> understand "interference". AG 
>>
>
>
>
> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
> and then generalize it.*
>
> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
 Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
 Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 

>>>
>>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
>>> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
>>> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
>>> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
>>> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
>>> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
>>> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
>>> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
>>> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
>>> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>>>
>>
>> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different 
>> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One 
>> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one 
>> path is considered. AG
>>
>
> My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply the 
> existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. One 
> needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the 
> probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the 
> probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle 
> can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to 
> understand how that can be. AG  
>

Now for the hard questions; in the case of S's cat, the wf = |alive>|source 
undecayed> + |dead>|source decayed>. if each wf component is considered as 
a wave, what are the probability amplitudes of each possible outcome before 
the box is opened? And what is the wf after decoherence has occurred but 
before the box is opened? 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/360cd599-37a0-4c1c-a860-f6fbdfd0398e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 


Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f19554a3-1876-b540-23c3-2fde062eb2c3%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
> understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



 But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
 least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
 of your misunderstanding.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
>> "what does *interference* mean".
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and 
> instead 
> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
> understand "interference". AG 
>



 *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
 and then generalize it.*

 OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
>>> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
>>> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
>> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
>> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
>> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
>> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
>> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
>> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
>> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
>> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
>> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>>
>
> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different 
> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One 
> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one 
> path is considered. AG
>

My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply the 
existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. One 
needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the 
probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the 
probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle 
can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to 
understand how that can be. 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/deb46246-4e2a-4899-854a-c5808572c9a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/26/2019 7:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either 
of two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through 
slit1. Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a 
screen with probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but 
through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or 
paths for the same Event, we must imagine the waves "interfering" even 
though they are not simultaneous, and the probability of that event 
with two possible paths, is the absolute value squared of the sum of 
phi1 and phi2.  AG 


In a Young's slit experiment the particles interfere with themselves.  
The interference pattern appears even if the electrons are sent one per 
hour.  That's what makes it strange, since it violates the classical 
"logic" that a thing cannot be two different places at the same time.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18d5626b-c6db-0e43-686a-a5edf6957fc9%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/26/2019 6:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as 
Scroedinger's Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of 
"interference". AG


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e41ef562-d319-a454-629d-2dad15328010%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
 You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
 understand 
 "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
>>> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
>>> of your misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>
>
>
> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
> "what does *interference* mean".
>
> @philipthrift
>

 You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
 and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead 
 rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
 understand "interference". AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>>> and then generalize it.*
>>>
>>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
>> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
>> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>>
>
> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>

Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different paths, 
having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One can 
imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one path is 
considered. 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/f7ef459c-5570-487c-8416-e039154cb234%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
>>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
>>> understand 
>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>


 I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
 does *interference* mean".

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>>> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
>>> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>>> understand "interference". AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>> then generalize it.*
>>
>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>

Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an electron 
impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a particular 
location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of two slits. 
Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. Now imagine 
another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with probability 
amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 
represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, we must imagine 
the waves "interfering" even though they are not simultaneous, and the 
probability of that event with two possible paths, is the absolute value 
squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  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/9ac6ed55-3bcb-494c-8655-9a6fdf916425%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
>> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
> misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
 conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
>>> does *interference* mean".
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
>> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>> understand "interference". AG 
>>
>
>
>
> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
> then generalize it.*
>
> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Scroedinger's 
Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". 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/73df3be1-27e6-4262-98ee-52acd9992d4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



 But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
 start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
 misunderstanding.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
>> does *interference* mean".
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
> understand "interference". AG 
>



*You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
then generalize it.*

OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.

@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/7628e75c-41fa-4a72-8958-0545cac8a516%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
 can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
 "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>
>
>
> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
> does *interference* mean".
>
> @philipthrift
>

You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
understand "interference". 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/4bb5d61a-041e-46ef-bbb3-390d96958fce%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
>>> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>


I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
does *interference* mean".

@philipthrift

@philipthtift 

-- 
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/8391294d-2bb8-4ba2-8b74-ea3bb6fa4373%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You can 
>> get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
> misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I conclude 
you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. 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/6d88f805-6dd5-4f95-9761-fdc913ed2383%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You can 
> get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least start 
with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
misunderstanding.

@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/8051c273-6137-435e-b8ea-0d3c0b12b9a4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 2:26:48 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box 
>>> is closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during 
>>> that time 
>>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>>> don't 
>>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
>>> initial 
>>> condition where the probability of one component of the 
>>> superposition, that 
>>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>>> think? AG
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is 
>> the cat 
>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>
>>
>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
>> point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is 
>> closed you 
>> don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
>> superposition of 
>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
>> so it 
>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
> decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
> alive 
> and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>
>
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
> you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  
> Once 
> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can 
> ignore the 
> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>
> Brent
>

 Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
 classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that 
 point in 
 time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 


 In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
 (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether 
 the cat 
 has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
 still 
 a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just 
 what you 
 know about the system.

>>>
>>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does 
>>> *interference* mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
>> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>>
>
>
> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
> meanings.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
>>> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>>>
>>> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>>> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>>>
>>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item 
>>> builds the concept of superposition, and 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
>> time 
>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>> don't 
>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
>> initial 
>> condition where the probability of one component of the 
>> superposition, that 
>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>> think? AG
>>
>
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
> cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>
>
> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
> point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is 
> closed you 
> don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
> superposition of 
> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
> so it 
> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>
> Brent
>

 I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
 decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
 alive 
 and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 


 It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
 you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
 envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
 question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  
 Once 
 envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
 the 
 other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
>>> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
>>> in 
>>> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
>>> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
>>> cat 
>>> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
>>> still 
>>> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
>>> you 
>>> know about the system.
>>>
>>
>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does 
>> *interference* mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>


 All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
 interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
 meanings.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
>> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>>
>> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>>
>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
>> the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
>> interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
>> probability for an event is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made 
>> from complex numbers, 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
> time 
> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
> don't 
> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
> initial 
> condition where the probability of one component of the 
> superposition, that 
> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
> think? AG
>

 Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
 radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
 cat 
 in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG


 You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
 point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed 
 you 
 don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
 superposition of 
 decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
 so it 
 is also in a superposition of dead and alive.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
>>> decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
>>> alive 
>>> and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
>>> you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
>>> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
>>> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
>>> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
>>> the 
>>> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
>> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
>> in 
>> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>
>>
>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
>> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
>> cat 
>> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
>> still 
>> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
>> you 
>> know about the system.
>>
>
> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
> mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>

 Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
 superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
>>> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
>>> meanings.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>
> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>
> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
> the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
> interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
> probability for an event is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made 
> from complex numbers, allows for negative, positive and intermediate 
> interference effects. This part of the formulation thus builds the 
> description of experiments such as the two-slit experiment directly into 
> the formulation. 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:


 On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
 closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
 time 
 interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
 don't 
 see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
 initial 
 condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
 that 
 the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
 think? AG

>>>
>>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
>>> cat 
>>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
>>> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you 
>>> don't 
>>> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
>>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so 
>>> it 
>>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
>> have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>
>>
>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you 
>> can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
>> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
>> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
>> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
>> the 
>> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
> in 
> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>
>
> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
> cat 
> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
> still 
> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
> you 
> know about the system.
>

 Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
 opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
 mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
>>> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
>> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
>> meanings.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>



Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
same answers, so what difference does it make?

*The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
associated with every history leading to the event.*

[This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
probability for an event is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made 
from complex numbers, allows for negative, positive and intermediate 
interference effects. This part of the formulation thus builds the 
description of experiments such as the two-slit experiment directly into 
the formulation. A history is a sequence of fundamental processes leading 
to the the event in question. 

http://muchomas.lassp.cornell.edu/8.04/Lecs/lec_FeynmanDiagrams/node3.html 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
>>> time 
>>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>>> don't 
>>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
>>> condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
>>> that 
>>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>>> think? AG
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
>> cat 
>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>
>>
>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
>> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you 
>> don't 
>> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so 
>> it 
>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
> have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>
>
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you 
> can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
> the 
> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>
> Brent
>

 Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
 after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
 if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 


 In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
 (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
 cat 
 has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still 
 a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
 you 
 know about the system.

>>>
>>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
>>> mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
>> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>>
>
>
> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
> meanings.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

Can you answer the question assuming the CI? 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/f3f8f882-907a-40ae-8fcc-fb2632da706f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time 
>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>> don't 
>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
>> condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
>> that 
>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? 
>> AG
>>
>
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>
>
> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you 
> don't 
> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so 
> it 
> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>
> Brent
>

 I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
 have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
 simultaneously. TIA, AG 


 It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you 
 can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
 envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
 question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
 envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the 
 other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
>>> after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
>>> if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
>>> Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat has 
>>> "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still a 
>>> superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what you 
>>> know about the system.
>>>
>>
>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
>> mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what superposition 
> and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>


All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
meanings.

@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/3513a8ac-6595-4fde-92d4-fee610a33d33%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time 
> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't 
> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
> condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
> that 
> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? 
> AG
>

 Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
 radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
 in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG


 You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
 Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
 know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
 decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
 is also in a superposition of dead and alive.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
>>> have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you 
>>> can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
>>> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
>>> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
>>> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the 
>>> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
>> after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
>> if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>
>>
>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
>> Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat has 
>> "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still a 
>> superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what you 
>> know about the system.
>>
>
> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
> mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>

Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what superposition 
and/or interference means in this context. TIA, 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/e9eb7fe2-d668-4a55-8d4b-6020a095663d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Oct 2019, at 13:40, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> As you seem to disbelieve in the mechanist theory of mind, there is no 
> problem with your approach, even less if you limit yourself to the study of 
> local predictions FAPP. But from a fundamental science, that does not work.
> 
> Sorry Bruno, but that is fundamental science, and it works very well indeed.

The physical prediction works only with the assumption of one-brain/one-mind, 
which is falsified when we assume that the brain is Turing emulable at some 
level relevant for our mind to persist after a functional substitution made at 
that level.



> Your “mechanism"

It is not mine, it is Descartes' one, or Darwin’s one, in the version of 
Turing’s notion of digital mechanism. The opposite of “mechanism” is the 
assumption that there is some magic operating in the body, so as to select the 
computation out of the arithmetical reality (which executes all computations in 
its extreme redundant and structured way). With mechanism, we must explain from 
that structure the appearance and stability of the observable, or we put 
(again) the mind-body problem under the rug.


> doesn't work because you can't even explain why there is a basis problem in 
> quantum mechanics.

I don’t see this. You can elaborate. Up to now, we cannot even explain with 
mechanism the existence of any basis, but at least, we got the relation 
consciousness/physics right, without adding actual infinities and magic action. 
It explains also why there is observable, which physics just assumes, and 
assumes a stability which has to be explained if we accept Mechanism (the older 
metaphysics in history).

Bruno



> 
> 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/CAFxXSLRP1iVJCC7s8cZYP%2BRdovKP-bJ3cZCWrLijZG417g8QfA%40mail.gmail.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/A4BAE181-47CF-4DD2-92EF-01CEC542BECD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Oct 2019, at 13:17, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:08 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> As you cannot track the behaviour of all molecules, you are unable to extract 
> interference pattern from that superposition, and it will look like a mixed 
> state. But without collapse of the wave, the cat, the molecules and yourself 
> will remain in the superposition state and this forever, and whatever base is 
> chosen to describe the wave describing you, the molecules and the cat.
> 
> Hilbert space might be independent of the basis chosen to describe it. But 
> our experience is not independent of the basis.

Our experience of observer depends on a base, but that very fact remains the 
same whatever base is chosen to describe the composite system “observer + base”.



> And it is our experience that science seeks to explain. Explanation is not 
> independent of the basis.


The local explanation is like that, but the “big picture” does not depend of 
the choice of the base. I think we agree.

Bruno



> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSnTe-K3Sg1BFiDGfayUrkeqDWXOSiJrw1ZDJVBv1OQAQ%40mail.gmail.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/E080A388-4DC2-4CB4-96FA-07F32A71015F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
 closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time 
 interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't 
 see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
 condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, 
 that 
 the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG

>>>
>>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
>>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
>>> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
>>> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
>>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
>>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
>> have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>
>>
>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can 
>> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.  
>> One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is 
>> the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted, 
>> then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities 
>> and renormalize the wave function.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
> after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
> if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>
>
> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
> Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat has 
> "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is still a 
> superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what you 
> know about the system.
>

Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is opened, 
what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* mean in this 
circumstance? TIA, 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/590ba06d-d5d5-479c-b4ee-5eb46fd70469%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> As you seem to disbelieve in the mechanist theory of mind, there is no
> problem with your approach, even less if you limit yourself to the study of
> local predictions FAPP. But from a fundamental science, that does not work.
>

Sorry Bruno, but that is fundamental science, and it works very well
indeed. Your "mechanism" doesn't work because you can't even explain why
there is a basis problem in quantum mechanics.

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/CAFxXSLRP1iVJCC7s8cZYP%2BRdovKP-bJ3cZCWrLijZG417g8QfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Oct 2019, at 02:55, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have 
>> in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
> 
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can 
> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.  One 
> way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is the 
> cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted, then 
> the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities and 
> renormalize the wave function.
> 
> And if Bruno adds "But the superposition never vanishes", I would ask him to 
> show me one situation in which this makes any difference at all. FAPP means 
> "For All Practical Purposes". If something has no practical purpose, what 
> actual use is it to physics? And we are doing physics here, after all. 
> Metaphysics is "all in your mind", and I can have different things in my mind 
> but still do physics.


We are trying here to get a coherent picture of reality, whatever it can be. 
Without adding some strong non-mechanist axiom in your theory of mind, physics 
fails to predict that you will feel like seeing an eclipse when it predict that 
there will be an eclipse, as you have an infinity of computational 
continuations in arithmetic.

Physics works very well with an highly non mechanist theory of mind, but then 
we have to abandon Darwinism, molecular biology, and even quantum mechanics 
without collapse.

With collapse, you have to explain the non-mechanist theory of mind that you 
are using, if you want a theory of everything.

There is no problem with FAPP, but when interested in the search of a reality, 
that simply does not work.

Advantage of mechanism: it explains, in testable way the origin of both quanta 
and the qualia in a coherent manner. The only difficulty is technical, and 
perhaps “religious”, as some people are attached to their metaphysical 
conception of matter. With mechanism, the appearance of matter is explained 
entirely by elementary arithmetic.

As you seem to disbelieve in the mechanist theory of mind, there is no problem 
with your approach, even less if you limit yourself to the study of local 
predictions FAPP. But from a fundamental science, that does not work.

Bruno



> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSYr1a6jWO5TQ-MzH-pvev_fv5%2B2_57GUitwi0OK3xvgQ%40mail.gmail.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/3BE3D1E6-A4FA-4253-9109-FE66A469966C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:08 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> As you cannot track the behaviour of all molecules, you are unable to
> extract interference pattern from that superposition, and it will look like
> a mixed state. But without collapse of the wave, the cat, the molecules and
> yourself will remain in the superposition state and this forever, and
> whatever base is chosen to describe the wave describing you, the molecules
> and the cat.
>

Hilbert space might be independent of the basis chosen to describe it. But
our experience is not independent of the basis. And it is our experience
that science seeks to explain. Explanation is not independent of the basis.

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/CAFxXSLSnTe-K3Sg1BFiDGfayUrkeqDWXOSiJrw1ZDJVBv1OQAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Oct 2019, at 08:21, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 12:14:21 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Oct 2019, at 19:35, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
>> 
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>> 
>>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>>> is both alive and dead. 
>>> 
>>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>> 
>>> Brent 
>>> 
>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>>> resolve S's problem with superposition.
>> 
>> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
>> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world).
>> 
>> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence 
>> theory. I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for 
>> observing a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if 
>> rigged to determine which-way. AG 
>> 
>> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
>> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
>> 
>> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a double 
>> slit-experiment.
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf 
>> 
>>> The cause of the problem, or
>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
>>> source. AG  
>> 
>> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively isolated 
>> until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has interacted with the 
>> detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting continuously into the 
>> branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch where is has just decayed 
>> and interacted with the environment.  The atom is in a superposition of 
>> decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying in time:   psi = 
>> sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
>> 
>> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
>> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
>> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time if 
>> decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
>> validity of said interpretation? AG 
>> 
>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
>> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval,
> 
> If the box isolates the cat, decoherence of what is in the box will not occur.
> 
> The box contains an environment, the air, heat, etc., so even though the box 
> is closed, decoherence does occur. AG 


Decoherence is just entanglement with the environment.

Imagine that the environment ion the cat in the box is just one molecule M (to 
simplify). M will “measure” the state of the cat by bouncing up to some 
position M-cat-alive (if the cat was alive) and another position  M-cat-dead if 
the cat was dead. By SWE, before you open the door, the environment “in the 
box” + the cat is described by the superposition 

   (cat-alive)(molecule at M-cat-alive) + (cat dead)(molecule at M-cat-dead)

which is still a superposition.

The same with 10^20 molecules, heat, etc. 

When you open the box, you will just get the state

(I see the cat alive)(cat alive)(molecules in the corresponding position) + (I 
see the cat dead)(cat dead)(molecules in the other corresponding position).

As you cannot track the behaviour of all molecules, you are unable to extract 
interference pattern from that superposition, and it will look like a mixed 
state. 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when
the box is closed, the cat is in a superposition of
alive and dead during that time interval, assuming the
decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see
how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume
an initial condition where the probability of one
component of the superposition, that the cat is dead, is
zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG


Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence,
assuming the radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the
wf of the cat?  Is the cat in a mixed state, alive or dead
with some probabIlity for each? AG


You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed". 
The point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the
box is closed you don't know whether or not it has decayed
and so it is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed
and the cat is correlated with these states, so it is also in
a superposition of dead and alive.

Brent


I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does
decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a
cat alive and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG


It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why
you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea
of envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to
Heisenberg's question: Where is the cut between the quantum and
the classical?  Once envriance has acted, then the result is
classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities and
renormalize the wave function.

Brent


Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that 
point in time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG


In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box (and 
Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the cat 
has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
still a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation. The wf is just 
what you know about the system.


--
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/59649bbc-fbef-e309-2d9b-3400b03d3954%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time 
>>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't 
>>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial 
>>> condition where the probability of one component of the superposition, that 
>>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>
>>
>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
>> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
>> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have 
> in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>
>
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can 
> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.  
> One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is 
> the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted, 
> then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities 
> and renormalize the wave function.
>
> Brent
>

Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes classical 
after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point in time even 
if the box hasn't been opened?  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/43aedf54-a007-42b3-aab5-c4ef02f72c3f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have
> in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead
> simultaneously. TIA, AG
>
>
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you can
> never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of envariance.
> One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's question: Where is
> the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once envriance has acted,
> then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore the other possibilities
> and renormalize the wave function.
>

And if Bruno adds "But the superposition never vanishes", I would ask him
to show me one situation in which this makes any difference at all. FAPP
means "For All Practical Purposes". If something has no practical purpose,
what actual use is it to physics? And we are doing physics here, after all.
Metaphysics is "all in your mind", and I can have different things in my
mind but still do physics.

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/CAFxXSLSYr1a6jWO5TQ-MzH-pvev_fv5%2B2_57GUitwi0OK3xvgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the
box is closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and
dead during that time interval, assuming the decay hasn't
happened. If that's the case, I don't see how decoherence
solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition
where the probability of one component of the superposition,
that the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution.
What do you think? AG


Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the
radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is
the cat in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for
each? AG


You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed". The
point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is
closed you don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is
in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed and the cat is
correlated with these states, so it is also in a superposition of
dead and alive.

Brent


I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence 
have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
simultaneously. TIA, AG


It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why you 
can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
the other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19ff269d-2110-b519-2d05-e4ec11581931%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
>> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval, 
>> assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
>> decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
>> where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat 
>> is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
>>
>
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>
>
> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
> Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you don't 
> know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition of 
> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, so it 
> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>
> Brent
>

I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does decoherence have 
in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat alive and dead 
simultaneously. TIA, 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/57509ef1-0729-43ef-bdee-3d1c154b682a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is
closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during
that time interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's
the case, I don't see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless
we can assume an initial condition where the probability of one
component of the superposition, that the cat is dead, is zero.
Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG


Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
cat in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG


You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The point 
Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed you 
don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a superposition 
of decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
so it is also in a superposition of dead and alive.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e066d300-e5b4-3330-81c6-b920bce3651f%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 12:14:21 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Oct 2019, at 19:35, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
 > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
 > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
 > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 

 Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
 Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the 
 cat 
 is both alive and dead. 

 But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
 Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
 vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the 
 cat 
 was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
 closed until someone looked in. 

 Brent 

>>>
>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>>> resolve S's problem with superposition. 
>>>
>>>
>>> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
>>> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world). 
>>>
>>
>> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence 
>> theory. I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for 
>> observing a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if 
>> rigged to determine which-way. AG 
>>
>> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
>>> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
>>>
>>> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a 
>>> double slit-experiment.
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf
>>>
>>> The cause of the problem, or
>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
>>> radioactive
>>> source. AG  
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively 
>>> isolated until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has 
>>> interacted with the detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting 
>>> continuously into the branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch 
>>> where is has just decayed and interacted with the environment.  The atom is 
>>> in a superposition of decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying in 
>>> time:   psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
>>>
>>
>> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
>> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
>> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time 
>> if decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
>> validity of said interpretation? AG 
>>
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval,
>
>
> If the box isolates the cat, decoherence of what is in the box will not 
> occur.
>

*The box contains an environment, the air, heat, etc., so even though the 
box is closed, decoherence does occur. AG *
 

> Then when the bow is opened, it will take 10^(-20) sec before you are 
> yourself into a superposition. With the SWE, once the cat is dead + alive, 
> in box, or out of a box, that state of superposition will never disappear.
>
>
>
> assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
> decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
> where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat 
> is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
>
>
> Decoherence never destroys any superposition. It only makes harder 
> (quasi-impossible, impossible in practice) to get the interference back. 
> That’s how decoherence works well in the no-collapse formulation of QM.
>
> 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 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Oct 2019, at 03:56, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 11:35:58 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>> 
>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>> is both alive and dead. 
>> 
>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>> closed until someone looked in. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>> resolve S's problem with superposition.
> 
> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world).
> 
> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence theory. 
> I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for observing 
> a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if rigged to 
> determine which-way. AG 
> 
> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
> 
> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a double 
> slit-experiment.
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf 
> 
>> The cause of the problem, or
>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
>> source. AG  
> 
> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively isolated 
> until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has interacted with the 
> detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting continuously into the branch 
> were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch where is has just decayed and 
> interacted with the environment.  The atom is in a superposition of decayed 
> and not decayed with amplitudes varying in time:   psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not 
> decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
> 
> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time if 
> decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
> validity of said interpretation? AG 
> 
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval, 
> assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
> decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
> where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat is 
> dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
> 
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the radioactive 
> source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat in a mixed 
> state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG

Without collapse, the cat never get into a mixed state. That never happen. But 
the SWE explains entirely why, from the perspective of the observer 
(him/herself analysed with the SWE), it looks like a mixed state has occurred.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a9e57dc-8480-43cf-83f4-3e1ff8998806%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Oct 2019, at 19:35, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>> 
>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>> is both alive and dead. 
>> 
>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>> closed until someone looked in. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>> resolve S's problem with superposition.
> 
> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world).
> 
> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence theory. 
> I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for observing 
> a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if rigged to 
> determine which-way. AG 
> 
> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
> 
> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a double 
> slit-experiment.
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf 
> 
>> The cause of the problem, or
>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
>> source. AG  
> 
> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively isolated 
> until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has interacted with the 
> detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting continuously into the branch 
> were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch where is has just decayed and 
> interacted with the environment.  The atom is in a superposition of decayed 
> and not decayed with amplitudes varying in time:   psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not 
> decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
> 
> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time if 
> decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
> validity of said interpretation? AG 
> 
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval,

If the box isolates the cat, decoherence of what is in the ox will not occur. 
Then when the bow is opened, it will take 10^(-20) sec before you are yourself 
into a superposition. With the SWE, once the cat is dead + alive, in box, or 
out of a box, that state of superposition will never disappear.



> assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
> decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
> where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat is 
> dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG

Decoherence never destroys any superposition. It only makes harder 
(quasi-impossible, impossible in practice) to get the interference back. That’s 
how decoherence works well in the no-collapse formulation of QM.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9cdcac4b-ecdb-48d3-bd1d-9ceb8d787ed3%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 11:35:58 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
 > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
 > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
 > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 

 Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
 Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the 
 cat 
 is both alive and dead. 

 But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
 Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
 vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the 
 cat 
 was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
 closed until someone looked in. 

 Brent 

>>>
>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>>> resolve S's problem with superposition. 
>>>
>>>
>>> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
>>> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world). 
>>>
>>
>> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence 
>> theory. I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for 
>> observing a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if 
>> rigged to determine which-way. AG 
>>
>> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
>>> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
>>>
>>> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a 
>>> double slit-experiment.
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf
>>>
>>> The cause of the problem, or
>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
>>> radioactive
>>> source. AG  
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively 
>>> isolated until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has 
>>> interacted with the detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting 
>>> continuously into the branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch 
>>> where is has just decayed and interacted with the environment.  The atom is 
>>> in a superposition of decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying in 
>>> time:   psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
>>>
>>
>> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
>> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
>> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time 
>> if decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
>> validity of said interpretation? AG 
>>
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
> the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval, 
> assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
> decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
> where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat 
> is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG
>

Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the cat 
in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG

>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a9e57dc-8480-43cf-83f4-3e1ff8998806%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>>
>>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>>> is both alive and dead. 
>>>
>>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>> resolve S's problem with superposition. 
>>
>>
>> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
>> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world). 
>>
>
> I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence 
> theory. I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for 
> observing a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if 
> rigged to determine which-way. AG 
>
> The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
>> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
>>
>> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a 
>> double slit-experiment.
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf
>>
>> The cause of the problem, or
>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
>> radioactive
>> source. AG  
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively isolated 
>> until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has interacted with 
>> the detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting continuously into the 
>> branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch where is has just 
>> decayed and interacted with the environment.  The atom is in a 
>> superposition of decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying in time:   
>> psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
>>
>
> But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
> states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
> cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time 
> if decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
> validity of said interpretation? AG 
>

Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is closed, 
the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that time interval, 
assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I don't see how 
decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an initial condition 
where the probability of one component of the superposition, that the cat 
is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you think? AG

>
>> Brent
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9cdcac4b-ecdb-48d3-bd1d-9ceb8d787ed3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:08 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
> What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence
> time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a
> uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead during
> any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG
>


> [image: cats.jpg]
>

 Maybe this is what it means for the cat to be alive and dead at the same
time?

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/CAFxXSLTU-S9hbrbJku%3DoLgdEWkwQ10wXrkXSgwvCjezx3QCanw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 17:11, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
> 
> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
> is both alive and dead. 
> 
> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
> closed until someone looked in. 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
> source. AG  
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum computer)? 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, so I 
> cannot answer this question. AG 

A quantum computer is just that, a computer that you can put in superposition 
state. You can put any bit in any arbitrary superposition state, like being 0 
and 1 “simultaneously”. You can put the whole processor in a superposition 
state, even in the on/off superposition state. With a 64 quit computer, you can 
do 2^64 computations simultaneously, and then you can make a Fourier transform 
of all results, and get some information. Shor’s algorithm, to factorise large 
number, use such large superposition. 
David Deutsch invented it mainly to illustrate that we have to take the 
superposition state seriously, but of course e know this since at least Dirac.

The technical difficulty is to get those stable, but progress have shown that 
it is possible, notably through quantum correction code (software solution) or 
through topological quantum computing (by squeezing electron in some way, we 
can build very stable superposition, unfortunately, the “squeezing apparatus” 
have to be huge, and this is not for tomorrow. But like Shannon theorem showed 
that we can transmit information  on wires, the quantum correcting code 
technics refutes many impossibility statements once made in that field.  That 
is why so many work on this.

Bruno





> 
> -- 
> 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/589ff9a2-a63d-49c2-ac7b-291b2ba5bcd8%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/8397FBDB-67D4-461A-B59C-7CED428D0E49%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Oct 2019, at 21:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/13/2019 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 12:52, Alan Grayson >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:28:38 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/8/2019 9:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > I've argued this before, but it's worth stating again. It's a 
>>> > misintepretation of superposition to claim that a system described by 
>>> > it, is in all the component states simultaneously. As is easily seen 
>>> > in ordinary vector space, an arbitrary vector has an uncountable 
>>> > number of different representations. Thus, to claim it is in some 
>>> > specific set of component states simultaneously, makes no sense. Thus 
>>> > evaporates a key "mystery" of quantum theory, inclusive of S's cat and 
>>> > Everett's many worlds. AG 
>>> 
>>> No.  It changes the problem to the question of why there are preferred 
>>> bases. 
>>> 
>>> Brent 
>>> 
>>> Who chose Alive and Dead, or Awake and Sleeping for the S. cat? Wasn't it 
>>> the observer? Since they had other choices, my claim stands. AG 
>> 
>> Everett showed explicitly that the relative states, and their relative 
>> statistics does not depend on the choice of the bases.
>> Something quite similar occur already in arithmetic, with a much general 
>> notion of "base”.
> 
> But he didn't explain why observations were only possible in some bases.

Which is something that I doubt about. Maybe this is just false. Only Zurel 
makes me think that the position base is more important … for us (the human), 
but other bases might play a similar role. For me this is an open problem.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5684d48-db8c-cb3a-bb6a-db015d41363d%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/4529293C-D0FE-4E39-9648-D6E9CFF67E6C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Oct 2019, at 21:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/13/2019 6:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 08:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/8/2019 9:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 I've argued this before, but it's worth stating again. It's a 
 misintepretation of superposition to claim that a system described by it, 
 is in all the component states simultaneously. As is easily seen in 
 ordinary vector space, an arbitrary vector has an uncountable number of 
 different representations. Thus, to claim it is in some specific set of 
 component states simultaneously, makes no sense. Thus evaporates a key 
 "mystery" of quantum theory, inclusive of S's cat and Everett's many 
 worlds. AG
>>> No.  It changes the problem to the question of why there are preferred 
>>> bases.
>> There are no preferred base. Or, if you prefer, such base are chosen by the 
>> entities which can be conscious, or compute, relatively to such base.
> 
> For someone who claims to have shown that physics is derivative from 
> psychology that should count as fundamentally preferred.

Psychology is not a base. Then, if we assume that the brain is Turing emulable, 
it is necessary that physics has to be explained from psychology, or better 
theology. That is the first result, and the second result is that we get 
quantum logic at the places expected. We get three different quantum logic, all 
richer than the usual inferred from nature, so we will learn more with the 
possible futures experiences.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> Then there are some explanation why such bases favour the position 
>> observable, like the analysis by Zurek of decoherence.
>> 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cf6bbc54-7f4c-8b94-939f-ec49e03e9343%40verizon.net.
> 
> -- 
> 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/ce326ae2-7cb1-fbc2-dc8e-c964996b0dd6%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/9274F34D-7675-4E81-BD81-7375E6316783%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Oct 2019, at 16:43, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 7:48:29 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 12:52, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:28:38 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/8/2019 9:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > I've argued this before, but it's worth stating again. It's a 
>> > misintepretation of superposition to claim that a system described by 
>> > it, is in all the component states simultaneously. As is easily seen 
>> > in ordinary vector space, an arbitrary vector has an uncountable 
>> > number of different representations. Thus, to claim it is in some 
>> > specific set of component states simultaneously, makes no sense. Thus 
>> > evaporates a key "mystery" of quantum theory, inclusive of S's cat and 
>> > Everett's many worlds. AG 
>> 
>> No.  It changes the problem to the question of why there are preferred 
>> bases. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> Who chose Alive and Dead, or Awake and Sleeping for the S. cat? Wasn't it 
>> the observer? Since they had other choices, my claim stands. AG 
> 
> Everett showed explicitly that the relative states, and their relative 
> statistics does not depend on the choice of the bases.
> Something quite similar occur already in arithmetic, with a much general 
> notion of "base”.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Arithmetic does not include probability theory. AG 

In the arithmetical ontology? You are right.

But if we assume mechanism, it is not difficult to explain why many form of 
uncertainty measure appears in the phenomenology of mind and matter from the 
person associated to number in the computations (realised in arithmetic). This 
is usually what I explain in the first half on my papers on this subject. Ask 
me any question starting from the papers. I have not much time until the end of 
November to explain it here.

Bruno



> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/e2854a3f-78c0-4968-9449-4255d2099fa6%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/57ec49df-e7ad-4617-9b5f-e79371795763%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/47B53D3D-7B1A-4613-B82F-5C0A7F50CD3A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Oct 2019, at 16:36, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 11:48:33 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 11:30:19 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/12/2019 7:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 8:07:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/12/2019 5:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 
 What does "realized" mean?  made real?  Being real is a metaphysical 
 concept.  Bohr never said anything about components of a superposition 
 being real.  He famously said “Physics is not about how the world is, it 
 is about what we can say about the world” and “Everything we call real is 
 made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
 
 Brent
 
 The latter comment is ridiculous. Aren't protons, neutrons and electrons 
 real?
>>> 
>>> Ask Bohr.  You never answer my questions; why should I answer yours.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> What questions haven't I answered??? AG 
>> 
>> Scan up until you see this symbol "?"
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I explained what "realized" means by giving an example; S's cat, alive and 
>> dead simultaneously.
> 
> That's a representation in the theory.  Every measurement that "realizes" its 
> state finds it to be one or the other.  So what's the operational 
> significance of "being realized"?  Schroedinger's whole point was that an 
> alive and dead cat is never realized.
> 
> Brent
> 
> As I previously suggested, since there is no operator that has those cat 
> states as eigenstates, S's example was probably meant to falsify the then 
> prevailing (and continuing) interpretation of superposition, as it leads to 
> an absurdity. It's not just about the cat! But the case of spin could be an 
> exception to my general claim that it's a fallacy to interpret a 
> superposition to mean the system so described, is in all component states 
> simultaneously. AG  
> 
> S's cat scenario was not simply about the fate of a cat. After all, we 
> already knew a cat can't be alive and dead simultaneously. It must have been 
> to show the fallacy of the prevailing interpretation of superposition. AG 
> 
> Incidentally, as I pointed out in a previous discussion of this issue, 
> decoherence doesn't help. Even though it is extremely rapid, say 10^(-20) 
> sec, there is still a finite duration when, according to the standard 
> interpretation of superposition, the cat it is alive and dead simultaneously.

Once the cat is "alive and dead”, it is for life! (Grin). I mean that 
decoherence does not “collapse” the wave. It explains only why we can’t see it. 

By the linearity of evolution and of the tensor product, Once a superposition 
exist, it never disappear.



> LC might see this as nit-picking, but it isn't. We know a cat cannot be alive 
> and dead simultaneously regardless of the time duration, however short.

We don’t know that. A cat is dead + Alive in the same sense that a particle is 
going through two slits. With mechanism, there is no contradiction, as they are 
in different histories/computations.

Bruno


> So this result, when apply decoherence, doesn't avoid the superposition 
> fallacy illustrated by S's cat. It can be traced to the interpretation of the 
> superposition of (|decayed> + |undecayed>) of the radioactive source. AG
> 
> 
>> Also, I said I would get back to you about spin superpositions when I have 
>> time to research the issue. Other than those items, I honestly have no idea 
>> what you're complaining about. Try asking me again. 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57880cde-6295-4459-95c5-2d5ecef15133%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/f6b15402-e17f-4e85-8966-15ed4d2e6f88%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 

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the 
>> decoherence 
>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>
>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period 
>> seconds.  
>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the 
>> cat 
>> is both alive and dead. 
>>
>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the 
>> cat 
>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very 
> short
> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
> radioactive
> source. AG  
>



 How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum 
 computer)? 

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, 
>>> so I 
>>> cannot answer this question. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My point i really that quantum computers with actual (physical) qubits 
>> are running in labs (IBM, Google, ...) as we speak. 
>>
>
> The issue is whether the interpretation of superposition I object to, is 
> somehow necessary for quantum computers to function. Is it? AG
>
> They are real things manifesting all the basic questions about quantum 
>> phenomena being posed. So it makes more sense to answer the questions about 
>> real things than thought-experiment examples. 
>>
>> In an OpenQASM program, what is happening (superpositions?, 
>> entanglements?) in the physical quantum computer when it runs?
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>


On the Google quantum computer, I posted this:

*The hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman algorithm *(in the quantum supremacy 
experiment)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/V6MDNmcFIxs/WKV_eQm_CgAJ

The SFA (above) has whatever "interpretation" is needed, one would presume.

@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/77fad922-bde7-4f34-9ef3-ba8484f8aaa5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the 
> decoherence 
> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>
> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period 
> seconds.  
> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the 
> cat 
> is both alive and dead. 
>
> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the 
> cat 
> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
> closed until someone looked in. 
>
> Brent 
>

 Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
 alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
 it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
 time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
 or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
 opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
 moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
 resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
 paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
 radioactive
 source. AG  

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum 
>>> computer)? 
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, 
>> so I 
>> cannot answer this question. AG 
>>
>
>
>
>
> My point i really that quantum computers with actual (physical) qubits are 
> running in labs (IBM, Google, ...) as we speak. 
>

The issue is whether the interpretation of superposition I object to, is 
somehow necessary for quantum computers to function. Is it? AG

They are real things manifesting all the basic questions about quantum 
> phenomena being posed. So it makes more sense to answer the questions about 
> real things than thought-experiment examples. 
>
> In an OpenQASM program, what is happening (superpositions?, 
> entanglements?) in the physical quantum computer when it runs?
>
> @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/58c2403b-0efe-4621-bed1-84ea5767789e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>
>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>> is both alive and dead. 
>>
>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
> resolve S's problem with superposition. 
>
>
> True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
> necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world). 
>

I think Feynman answer this question before the advent of decoherence 
theory. I recall reading his comments that an instrument was sufficient for 
observing a double slit experiment, and even destroying the interference if 
rigged to determine which-way. AG 

The idea of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
> continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.
>
> Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a 
> double slit-experiment.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf
>
> The cause of the problem, or
> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
> source. AG  
>
>
> Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively isolated 
> until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has interacted with 
> the detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting continuously into the 
> branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch where is has just 
> decayed and interacted with the environment.  The atom is in a 
> superposition of decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying in time:   
> psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .
>

But isn't this superposition, interpreted to mean the source is in both 
states simultaneously before measurement, responsible for the paradox of a 
cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short time 
if decoherence is considered? If so, isn't this sufficient to question the 
validity of said interpretation? AG 

>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a02a3935-d3d8-46de-ad3f-62bd5809f26c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
 > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
 > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
 > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 

 Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
 Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the 
 cat 
 is both alive and dead. 

 But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
 Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
 vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the 
 cat 
 was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
 closed until someone looked in. 

 Brent 

>>>
>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>>> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
>>> radioactive
>>> source. AG  
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum 
>> computer)? 
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, so 
> I 
> cannot answer this question. AG 
>




My point i really that quantum computers with actual (physical) qubits are 
running in labs (IBM, Google, ...) as we speak. They are real things 
manifesting all the basic questions about quantum phenomena being posed. So 
it makes more sense to answer the questions about real things than 
thought-experiment examples. 

In an OpenQASM program, what is happening (superpositions?, entanglements?) 
in the physical quantum computer when it runs?

@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/ea7c9da9-f718-4182-8fa5-643b32f93f4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2019 9:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the
decoherence
> time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a
> uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead
> during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG

Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period
seconds.
Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which
the cat
is both alive and dead.

But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with
Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was
vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that
the cat
was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was
closed until someone looked in.

Brent


Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
resolve S's problem with superposition.


True, but it resolves the problem about whether conscious observers are 
necessary to "collapse" the wave function (or split the world). The idea 
of decoherence is that, it not carefully isolated, systems are 
continuously "monitored" by the environment and so act classically.


Here's a good analysis which casts the Schroedinger cat story into a 
double slit-experiment.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7612.pdf


The cause of the problem, or
paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
radioactive

source. AG


Yes, that's the problem.  The radioactive nucleus is effectively 
isolated until it decays, after which it is not isolated...it has 
interacted with the detector.  So in the MWI the system is splitting 
continuously into the branch were the atom hasn't decayed and the branch 
where is has just decayed and interacted with the environment.  The atom 
is in a superposition of decayed and not decayed with amplitudes varying 
in time:   psi = sqrt[exp(-at)]|not decayed> +sqrt[1-expt(-at)]|decayed>  .


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/28c7599b-897f-ffd2-e906-306725acf313%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>>
>>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>>> is both alive and dead. 
>>>
>>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
>> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the 
>> radioactive
>> source. AG  
>>
>
>
>
> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum 
> computer)? 
>
> @philipthrift
>

I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, so 
I 
cannot answer this question. 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/589ff9a2-a63d-49c2-ac7b-291b2ba5bcd8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
>> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>>
>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
>> is both alive and dead. 
>>
>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
>> closed until someone looked in. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
> source. AG  
>



How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum 
computer)? 

@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/5671218f-c51c-4445-a56e-2e07356e88ad%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
> > during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG 
>
> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
> is both alive and dead. 
>
> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
> closed until someone looked in. 
>
> Brent 
>

Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of
alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened
it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short
time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead>
or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was
opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just
moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not
resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or
paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the radioactive
source. 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/17aca432-ca71-4f13-9dc1-1ac7bbf2c64f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence 
time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a 
uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead 
during any duration?  Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG


Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period seconds.  
Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the cat 
is both alive and dead.


But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with 
Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was 
vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the cat 
was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was 
closed until someone looked in.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/475ff401-8732-caf0-6726-c88e39639927%40verizon.net.