Ignorance Interpretation of Superposition

[Alan Grayson]

It means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, but we don't know which one. Brent alleged it is "exactly wrong". I'd like an argument why that's the case, if it is. Does it follow from Bell experiments? TY, AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 11:03:52 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

It means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, but we don't know which one. Brent alleged it is "exactly wrong". I'd like an argument why that's the case, if it is. Does it follow from Bell experiments? TY, AG

Aside from the Ignorance Interpretation, there are two others; namely, that the system is simultaneously in all states of the superposition, and that the system is in none of the states of the superposition. At present, I tend to believe that latter, and that a superposition is a mathematical construct the founders stumbled upon, which allows us to calculate probabilities, but has no additional meaning. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 11:49:04 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2024 at 11:03:52 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

It means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, but we don't know which one. Brent alleged it is "exactly wrong". I'd like an argument why that's the case, if it is. Does it follow from Bell experiments? TY, AG

Aside from the Ignorance Interpretation, there are two others; namely, that the system is simultaneously in all states of the superposition, and that the system is in none of the states of the superposition. At present, I tend to believe the latter, and that a superposition is a mathematical construct the founders stumbled upon, which allows us to calculate probabilities, but has no additional meaning. AG 

ITSM that the Ignorance Interpretations is, de facto, a realist interpretation, which I think Bell experiments falsified. Is this correct? AG  

[scerir]

It means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, but we don't know which one. Brent alleged it is "exactly wrong". I'd like an argument why that's the case, if it is. Does it follow from Bell experiments? TY, AG

Can we say that the observable has a DEFINITE value between two measurements?

 

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state

psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z+(s-)_z] .

 

If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.

 

In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x +(s-)_x]

 

and (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x -(s-)_x]

 

(where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component of spin)

 

so psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.

 

Now let us imagine that the state psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] is not a pure state but a mixture.

In this case we might also think that - before measurement - the particle has a DEFINITE value,

of the z-projection of the spin, let us say say [(s+)_z] OR [(s-)_z].

 

But, in this case, measuring the x-component of the spin, we would find 50% 'up'and 50% 'down'. But the real outcome says 100% 'up'.

 

 

 

[Alan Grayson]

 Succinctly; what exactly do you think you've proven?  How does it relate to the question posed on this thread? TY, AG

[scerir]

Il 13/10/2024 12:40 CEST Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

 

 

On Sunday, October 13, 2024 at 2:27:06 AM UTC-6 scerir wrote:

Succinctly; what exactly do you think you've proven?  How does it relate to the question posed on this threat? TY, AG

If ignorance interpretation means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, that interpretation is wrong

[Cosmin Visan]

What system ? You mean consciousness not knowing a certain thing about itself ? You have to understand that what is happening "at the moment of measurement" is consciousness acquiring an idea in itself about a certain yet unknown aspect of itself. The question is why does this process of knowledge acquisition work like this ? For example, why precognitions, which are basically a "quantum measurement" regarding the states of the future, is skewed towards outcomes which involve loved ones in danger ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2024 at 4:22:53 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

What system ? You mean consciousness not knowing a certain thing about itself ? You have to understand that what is happening "at the moment of measurement" is consciousness acquiring an idea in itself about a certain yet unknown aspect of itself. The question is why does this process of knowledge acquisition work like this ? For example, why precognitions, which are basically a "quantum measurement" regarding the states of the future, is skewed towards outcomes which involve loved ones in danger ?

You refuse to accept the fact, that whereas your theory of consciousness at the core of reality, although likely correct, at the same time can't solve any problems we're discussing here. In other words, at a practical level, your theory is USELESS! AG 

[Alan Grayson]

If ignorance interpretation means that a system in a superposition is in one of the states defining the superposition, that interpretation is wrong.

Which interpretation is correct? The one I prefer is that a superposition as a list of possible states is useful in calculating probabilities, and there is no inference or argument that the system that superposition represents, is in any of the states in the list. IOW, instead of assuming the system is all states in the list simultaneously, it is in NONE of those states. AG

 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. You refuse to understand that the classification into useless and useful is just a reflection of internal depression and happiness. When you are depressed everything is useless, as such, you want to kill yourself. When you are happy everything is useful, as such, you want to live life to the fullest.