Spin Superposition

[Alan Grayson]

The wf under consideration is 1/sqrt (2)[ |spin Up> + |spin Dn> ], and my question is this:

Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false? Brent says it is "exactly wrong". I'd like to know his reasoning, or anyone's reasoning. TY, AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, November 2, 2024 at 11:16:57 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

The wf under consideration is 1/sqrt (2)[ |spin Up> + |spin Dn> ], and my question is this: Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false? Brent says it is "exactly wrong". I'd like to know his reasoning, or anyone's reasoning. TY, AG

The way I see it; 

CMMIAW, but when electrons are passed through a SG apparatus, the electrons exit going UP or DN, and are perpendular to the table on which the apparatus is situated, assuming the axis of the apparatus is placed parallel to the floor. Now imagine the apparatus inclined at 30 degrees. Now the electrons will exit at an angle of 60 degrees from the horizontal. Since the same wf applies, this means that neither UP or DN can be, in combination, the state of the electrons before measurement. Therefore, realism is denied, the interpretation that the system is in all states of the superposition before measurement is denied, and the Ignorance Interpretation of the superposition is denied. What's affirmed is that the system is in none of the states of the superposition before measurement. AG

[Brent Meeker]

That doesn't express ignorance of the spin, although if you test for |Up> or |Dn> you'll get "yes" half the time; but if you test for |Right> you get "yes" 100%.  So a superposition is a definite state.  But in many cases we don't have an instrument that will measure in the superposition's axis.

Brent

On 11/2/2024 10:16 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

The wf under consideration is 1/sqrt (2)[ |spin Up> + |spin Dn> ], and my question is this:

Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false? Brent says it is "exactly wrong". I'd like to know his reasoning, or anyone's reasoning. TY, 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1f239ffb-675f-4992-b084-9299a34f03f7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, November 3, 2024 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

That doesn't express ignorance of the spin, although if you test for |Up> or |Dn> you'll get "yes" half the time; but if you test for |Right> you get "yes" 100%.  So a superposition is a definite state.  But in many cases we don't have an instrument that will measure in the superposition's axis.

Brent

Let's back up a bit; why do you reject the Ignorance interpretation of superpositon? AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 1:16 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false?

In science it's impossible to ever be 100% certain that something is true, but you can be 100% certain that something is false. We can be 100% certain that the naïve ignorance interpretation is false because it fails the all important experimental test. It makes the wrong prediction.  I already pointed that out in my long post about Bell's Inequality.

If you want to know if the ignorance interpretation is true or false you can't just sit in your arm chair and think about it, you've got to get your hands dirty and perform an experiment. People have performed such an experiment, and received the Nobel Prize in 2022 for doing so, and the ignorance hypothesis, at least the naïve version that involves local hidden variables, fell flat on its face. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

[Alan Grayson]

That's exactly what I wanted to know; I was even going to suggest it myself; whether Bell experiments falsify the Ignorance Hypothesis. BTW, the Ignorance Hypothesis trivially implies Realism. AG 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, the Ignorance Hypothesis trivially implies Realism.

It makes little difference with the ignorance hypothesis implied because it's not true. What the winners of the 2022 Nobel prize proved is that the universe (or multiverse) is either non-local or non-realistic or both.  I think it's probably local but non-realistic, Many Worlds is local but non-realistic.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

qp1

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:05:59 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, the Ignorance Hypothesis trivially implies Realism.

It makes little difference with the ignorance hypothesis implied because it's not true. What the winners of the 2022 Nobel prize proved is that the universe (or multiverse) is either non-local or non-realistic or both.  I think it's probably local but non-realistic, Many Worlds is local but non-realistic.

But you continue to refuse to support the key unproven postulate with your infatuation with MW; specifically, if some event is possible to happen, why must it necessarily happen? If there's a winner in a horse race, why must there be a race in which each of losers wins? It's quite of huge extrapolation and AFAICT, completely unsupported. And please don't appeal to Schrodinger's equation as your proof. If all we need is some equation to prove a point, I could refer to ME's and claim the EM field is continuous. AG

BTW, if a theory is non-realistic, meaning the properties of some entity which are measured, do not exist prior to the measurement, what would it mean for the theory to also be local? I don't see what "local" could mean in the context of non-realistic. TY, AG

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:07 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you continue to refuse to support the key unproven postulate with your infatuation with MW; specifically, if some event is possible to happen, why must it necessarily happen?

All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic, so there is no reason why one solution to that equation will become reality but another solution will not become real. Therefore all solutions must correspond with reality.    

> BTW, if a theory is non-realistic, meaning the properties of some entity which are measured, do not exist prior to the measurement,

That's not what realistic means. It's realistic if prior to measurement the thing being measured is in one and only one definite state. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

0o0 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:07 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you continue to refuse to support the key unproven postulate with your infatuation with MW; specifically, if some event is possible to happen, why must it necessarily happen?

All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic, so there is no reason why one solution to that equation will become reality but another solution will not become real. Therefore all solutions must correspond with reality. 

Then since ME's are always true, EM fields must be continuous! AG  

> BTW, if a theory is non-realistic, meaning the properties of some entity which are measured, do not exist prior to the measurement,

That's not what realistic means. It's realistic if prior to measurement the thing being measured is in one and only one definite state. 

I was defining NON-REALISTIC, and defined it correctly. Again, if MW is non-realistic, how can it also be local, which was your recent claim? AG 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:19 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic, so there is no reason why one solution to that equation will become reality but another solution will not become real. Therefore all solutions must correspond with reality. 

> Then since ME's are always true, EM fields must be continuous! AG  

Maxwell's Equations are compatible with Special and General Relativity but NOT with Quantum Mechanics. As soon as the electron was discovered in 1897 everybody knew that Maxwell's equations would need to be modified, but it took about 30 years before anybody knew exactly how. But there is no experimental result that suggests Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified. 

 

> if MW is non-realistic, how can it also be local,

Because Many Worlds is perfectly compatible with it being impossible to send signals faster than light.  

 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jtl

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 12:35:53 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:19 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic, so there is no reason why one solution to that equation will become reality but another solution will not become real. Therefore all solutions must correspond with reality. 

> Then since ME's are always true, EM fields must be continuous! AG  

Maxwell's Equations are compatible with Special and General Relativity but NOT with Quantum Mechanics. As soon as the electron was discovered in 1897 everybody knew that Maxwell's equations would need to be modified, but it took about 30 years before anybody knew exactly how. But there is no experimental result that suggests Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified. 

Except for the fact that it violates Relativity! AG 

 

> if MW is non-realistic, how can it also be local,

 

Because Many Worlds is perfectly compatible with it being impossible to send signals faster than light.  

 

But if signals can't be sent between the worlds of MW, there's no way to test whether or not it is local. AG 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:55 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Maxwell's Equations are compatible with Special and General Relativity but NOT with Quantum Mechanics. As soon as the electron was discovered in 1897 everybody knew that Maxwell's equations would need to be modified, but it took about 30 years before anybody knew exactly how. But there is no experimental result that suggests Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified. 

> Except for the fact that it violates Relativity! AG 

I'm not sure exactly what you're driving at, I'm not even sure what "it" is. 

>>> if MW is non-realistic, how can it also be local,

 

>>Because Many Worlds is perfectly compatible with it being impossible to send signals faster than light.  

 

>But if signals can't be sent between the worlds of MW, there's no way to test whether or not it is local. AG 

Sending signals between worlds has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about signals sent to different parts of  the same world. And the existence of many worlds is not an assumption of the theory, it is simply a  consequence (not an assumption) of taking Schrodinger's equation seriously. The only assumption the theory makes is that  Schrodinger's equation means what it says. And it does not need signals that travel faster than light, it can get along just fine without them. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wda

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:55 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Maxwell's Equations are compatible with Special and General Relativity but NOT with Quantum Mechanics. As soon as the electron was discovered in 1897 everybody knew that Maxwell's equations would need to be modified, but it took about 30 years before anybody knew exactly how. But there is no experimental result that suggests Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified. 

> Except for the fact that it violates Relativity! AG 

I'm not sure exactly what you're driving at, I'm not even sure what "it" is. 

"It" refers to Schrodinger's equation, which is known to describe NON-RELATIVISTIC QM, so how can you claim there's no need for it to be modified? Moreover, QM is inherently NON-LOCAL since the wf solutions extend to plus and minus infinity, even solutions to the relativistic equation of Dirac.  AG  

>>> if MW is non-realistic, how can it also be local,

 

>>Because Many Worlds is perfectly compatible with it being impossible to send signals faster than light.  

 

>But if signals can't be sent between the worlds of MW, there's no way to test whether or not it is local. AG 

Sending signals between worlds has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about signals sent to different parts of  the same world. And the existence of many worlds is not an assumption of the theory, it is simply a  consequence (not an assumption) of taking Schrodinger's equation seriously. The only assumption the theory makes is that  Schrodinger's equation means what it says. And it does not need signals that travel faster than light, it can get along just fine without them. 

But it needs its wf solutions that extend to plus and minus infinity, so QM is inherently non-local regardless of whether light has a finite velocity. AG 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 4:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "It" refers to Schrodinger's equation, which is known to describe NON-RELATIVISTIC QM,

Please give me a specific example of what you're talking about  

> since the wf solutions extend to plus and minus infinity, even solutions to the relativistic equation of Dirac.  AG

And the observable problems that produces are ......? 

 

> Moreover, QM is inherently NON-LOCAL

Charles Darwin! I'm not going to go over all that yet AGAIN! Enough is enough. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

e1e

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/4/2024 11:05 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:07 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you continue to refuse to support the key unproven postulate with your infatuation with MW; specifically, if some event is possible to happen, why must it necessarily happen?

All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic,

That's not quite true.  The equation determines probabilities.  I'm not sure that's 100% deterministic.  That's one of the problems with MWI, how do you get probabilities to enter.  "Self-locating uncertainty" is postulated.  But are their different weights of "self" or is it branch counting?  If it's branch counting how do the number of branches materialize and get divided up?

Brent

so there is no reason why one solution to that equation will become reality but another solution will not become real. Therefore all solutions must correspond with reality.    

> BTW, if a theory is non-realistic, meaning the properties of some entity which are measured, do not exist prior to the measurement,

That's not what realistic means. It's realistic if prior to measurement the thing being measured is in one and only one definite state. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

0o0 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1T82kgXicCK3vTg%3DBozfmLF0xHH50chfaFnGP8-ZC5fA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:18 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic,

 

> That's not quite true.  The equation determines probabilities. 

Schrodinger's Equation determines the quantum wave and that wave is 100% deterministic, but it's not observable, and it includes negative numbers as well as imaginary numbers. The square of the absolute value of the wave function always produces a positive real number between zero and one, and all the numbers always add up to exactly one, which is just what you want for a probability. And a probability is observable. 

 

"Self-locating uncertainty" is postulated. 

Yes.

> But are their different weights of "self"

Yes.  

> or is it branch counting? 

No, branch counting could never work.  The way I like to think about it, and this is only an analogy and not to be taken too seriously, is that some of the branches are thicker than others, so if you had to bet which branch you were on you would do better to bet you were in the thicker one.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jrb

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 4:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "It" refers to Schrodinger's equation, which is known to describe NON-RELATIVISTIC QM,

Please give me a specific example of what you're talking about  

It's ALWAYS presented as NON-RELATIVISTIC. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. AG 

> since the wf solutions extend to plus and minus infinity, even solutions to the relativistic equation of Dirac.  AG

And the observable problems that produces are ......? 

I suppose that when the velocity of a particle is comparable to the SoL, the result of Schrodinger's equation will differ substantially from those of the Dirac equation, but offhand I can't offer a specific example. AG 

 

> Moreover, QM is inherently NON-LOCAL

Charles Darwin! I'm not going to go over all that yet AGAIN! Enough is enough. 

You don't have to, and I am not expecting you to. But I'd sure appreciate it if you would not lapse into your a'hole mode. But you're wrong. QM is non-local. How the hell do you think the wf can extend to infinity in both directions. Something must be moving instantaneously! AG e1e

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Please give me a specific example of what you're talking about  

> It's ALWAYS presented as NON-RELATIVISTIC. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. AG 

OK now I see what you're talking about and you're right, when things are moving very fast you need Dirac's equation as well as Schrodinger's. Perhaps I should've been a little more precise in my language and instead of saying Schrodinger's equation is the ultimate reality I should've been saying the quantum wave function, which is approximated by Schrodinger and made precise by Dirac, is the ultimate reality. 

> And the observable problems that produces are ......? 

> I suppose that when the velocity of a particle is comparable to the SoL, the result of Schrodinger's equation will differ substantially from those of the Dirac equation, but offhand I can't offer a specific example. AG

I can give you an example ,  for the lighter elements Schrodinger's equation can accurately predict their spectral lines. but for the heavier elements like uranium the electrons are going around so fast that they are relativistic, so you need Dirac's help. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mpd

 

[Alan Grayson]

Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG 

mpd

 

[Alan Grayson]

When I started this thread, I gave an example of two experiments with an SG apparatus, one situated horizontally and another at a 30 degree angle from the horizontal. Since they produce different UP/DN states, that is at different angles for identical sets of incident electrons, I conjectured that this could only occur IF the electrons have no preexisting states, and the resultant states were caused by the measurement process. IOW, isn't this example sufficient to deny local realism? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/4/2024 2:45 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:18 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All Many World says is that Schrodinger's equation always holds true, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic,

 

> That's not quite true.  The equation determines probabilities. 

Schrodinger's Equation determines the quantum wave and that wave is 100% deterministic, but it's not observable, and it includes negative numbers as well as imaginary numbers. The square of the absolute value of the wave function always produces a positive real number between zero and one, and all the numbers always add up to exactly one

Only after you normalize it.

, which is just what you want for a probability. And a probability is observable. 

 

"Self-locating uncertainty" is postulated. 

Yes.

> But are their different weights of "self"

Yes.  

> or is it branch counting? 

No, branch counting could never work.  

The other advocate of MWI I know insists that it only makes sense for branch counting.

Brent

The way I like to think about it, and this is only an analogy and not to be taken too seriously, is that some of the branches are thicker than others, so if you had to bet which branch you were on you would do better to bet you were in the thicker one.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jrb

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2DqQLscYpO0pPBD5REbFDnvXcgvRYR0wR5hU3AzapGRA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

You could ask the same question about the usual SG experiment. I suppose if the electrons

were obtained from the same source, there would be no reason for distinguishing them. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:27:24 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

You could ask the same question about the usual SG experiment. I suppose if the electrons

were obtained from the same source, there would be no reason for distinguishing them. AG 

Can't we assume the electrons which I think are identical, all have the same wf indicated at the

beginning of this thread? What other wf could be assumed? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:27:24 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

You could ask the same question about the usual SG experiment. I suppose if the electrons

were obtained from the same source, there would be no reason for distinguishing them. AG 

Can't we assume the electrons which I think are identical, all have the same wf indicated at the

beginning of this thread? What other wf could be assumed? AG 

On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought experiment, there is no

operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that the S. Cat thought

experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then realized that the P 

operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's Hermitian, BUT

how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/4/2024 9:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:27:24 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

You could ask the same question about the usual SG experiment. I suppose if the electrons

were obtained from the same source, there would be no reason for distinguishing them. AG 

Can't we assume the electrons which I think are identical, all have the same wf indicated at the

beginning of this thread? What other wf could be assumed? AG 

On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought experiment, there is no

operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that the S. Cat thought

experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then realized that the P 

operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's Hermitian, BUT

how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG

The eigenvector would be momentum.

Brent

On 11/4/2024 6:03 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> When I started this thread, I gave an example of two experiments with
> an SG apparatus, one situated horizontally and another at a 30 degree
> angle from the horizontal. Since they produce different UP/DN states,
> that is at different angles for identical sets of incident electrons,
> I conjectured that this could only occur IF the electrons have no
> preexisting states, and the resultant states were caused by the
> measurement process. IOW, isn't this example sufficient to deny local
> realism? 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/92422fe2-4745-4b4e-9565-3c5a6cdfe772n%40googlegroups.com.

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:12:39PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/4/2024 9:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought
> experiment, there is no
> operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that
> the S. Cat thought
> experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then
> realized that the P 
> operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's
> Hermitian, BUT
> how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG
>
> The eigenvector would be momentum.
>

Sorry Brent - the measured momentum values are still eigenvalues.

Pick 3 orthogonal directions to measure the momentum, say x, y and z.

Then the momentum operators are -iℏ∂/∂x, -iℏ∂/∂y and -iℏ∂/∂z, and the 3 eigenvalues are the 3 components of momentum.

One could also write it in vector form iℏ∇, in which case the operator
has a vector-valued eigenvalue.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 11:12:15 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/4/2024 9:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:27:24 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:49:17 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

How can you know they were identical sets of incident electrons, if they
had no definite state.

Brent

You could ask the same question about the usual SG experiment. I suppose if the electrons

were obtained from the same source, there would be no reason for distinguishing them. AG 

Can't we assume the electrons which I think are identical, all have the same wf indicated at the

beginning of this thread? What other wf could be assumed? AG 

On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought experiment, there is no

operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that the S. Cat thought

experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then realized that the P 

operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's Hermitian, BUT

how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG

The eigenvector would be momentum.

Brent

I don't think you understand. Quantum operators are all Hermitian, from which it follows that their

eigenvalues are real, what is measured. How can we measure momentum, which is a vector, if the

eigenvalue is real? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:27:55 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:12:39PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/4/2024 9:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought
> experiment, there is no
> operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that
> the S. Cat thought
> experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then
> realized that the P 
> operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's
> Hermitian, BUT
> how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG
>
> The eigenvector would be momentum.
>

Sorry Brent - the measured momentum values are still eigenvalues.

Pick 3 orthogonal directions to measure the momentum, say x, y and z.

Then the momentum operators are -iℏ∂/∂x, -iℏ∂/∂y and -iℏ∂/∂z, and the 3 eigenvalues are the 3 components of momentum.

One could also write it in vector form iℏ∇, in which case the operator
has a vector-valued eigenvalue.

I don't think this is correct. Quantum operators are chosen to be Hermitian, that is, self-adjoint IIRC, so that their eigenvalues will be

real. This is something that can be proven. So the question remains; how can a real eigenvalue be a measured momentum, which

is a vector? AG 

[smitra]

On 03-11-2024 06:16, Alan Grayson wrote:
> The wf under consideration is 1/sqrt (2)[ |spin Up> + |spin Dn> ], and
> my question is this:
> Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false? Brent says it is
> "exactly wrong". I'd like to know his reasoning, or anyone's
> reasoning. TY, AG


This can most clearly be seen by considering a certain measurement on
the state:

|psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|u1, u2, u3> - |d1, d2, d3>]

where ui denotes spin up of the ith particle and di denotes spin down
for the ith particle relative to a defined z-axis. We then consider 3
observers where observer i is going to measure spin nr. i. And we then
consider the observable Ai which corresponds to observer i measuring the
x-component of spin i while the two observers measure the y-components
of the spins allocated to them. And we then assign a value ±1 for
measuring spin op or down, and Ai multiples the results of the
measurements for the 3 observers.

How does Ai act on psi? It's easy to see that:

sigma_x|u> = |d>

sigma_x|d> = |u>

sigma_y|u> = i |d>

sigma_y|d> = -i |u>

If we then let Ai act on |psi>, then the up and down states are
reversed, and the two sigma_y operators yield a minus sign for both the
first and the second term. So, we see that the two terms in |psi> get
interchanged and there is an overall minus sign, so the ent effect is
that the state is left unchanged:

Ai|psi> = |psi>

So, the outcome of measuring two y components and one x component and
multiplying the results with each other is always going to yield 1 as
the answer. But suppose that the measurement results of the spins are
locally predetermined. When we measure spin up then there was some set
of local hidden variable that made the outcome to be spin up when
deciding to measure the spin in the direction it was measured in, and
the variables would also tell us what would have happened had we
measured a different component of the spin.

With the outcome of all possible measurements being predetermined in the
hidden variable scenario and given that we know that measuring each Ai
is always going to yield, we have that the value of A1 A2 A3 equals 1.
While we can only measure 1 of the Ai, all 3 are well defined
independent of what we choose to measure if we assume hidden variables.
If we denote the unknown value of the ith spin in the x and y directions
by Six and Siy, respectively, then we have:

1 = A1 A2 A3 = (S1x S2y S3y) (S1y S2x S3y) (S1y S2y S3x)= S1x S2x S3x
S1y^2 S2y^2 S3y^2 = S1x S2x S3x

because the square of a spin is always 1. So, if we assume local hidden
variables, we predict that if all observers measure the x component that
then the product of their results always equals 1. But, with sigma_x
flipping up and down states we have:

sigmax1 sigmax2 sigmax3|psi> = -|psi>

So, measuring S1x S2x S3x will always yield minus 1, not plus 1.

Saibal

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. 

I asserted no such thing! 

I said IF quantum mechanics is local and deterministic then it can't be realistic. And Many Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and deterministic  then it can't be local. And pilot wave theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and local then it can't be deterministic. And objective collapse is realistic and local but not deterministic. 

And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right.  

You can't be realistic and local and deterministic and still be compatible with the violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta give. 

Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know, Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third favorite is "other",  and my fourth favorite is pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and the universe's favorites may not be the same thing.  

> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG 

Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to quantum mechanics, but that fact doesn't enable you to send information faster than light, so it's of no help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

68b

[Alan Grayson]

Because information can't be sent, some people say there is instantaneous influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG

68b

[Alan Grayson]

Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously, apparently entangled pairs can. IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? AG

68b

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 6:45:43 AM UTC-7 smitra wrote:

On 03-11-2024 06:16, Alan Grayson wrote:
> The wf under consideration is 1/sqrt (2)[ |spin Up> + |spin Dn> ], and
> my question is this:
> Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false? Brent says it is
> "exactly wrong". I'd like to know his reasoning, or anyone's
> reasoning. TY, AG


This can most clearly be seen by considering a certain measurement on
the state:

|psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|u1, u2, u3> - |d1, d2, d3>]

where ui denotes spin up of the ith particle and di denotes spin down
for the ith particle relative to a defined z-axis. We then consider 3
observers where observer i is going to measure spin nr. i.

 "We then consider 3 observers where observer i is going to measure spin nr. i." ? AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/5/2024 1:26 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:27:55 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:12:39PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/4/2024 9:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On an unrelated issue, I recall your mention that wrt the S. Cat thought
> experiment, there is no
> operator which has Alive and Dead as eigenvalues. IMO, this implies that
> the S. Cat thought
> experiment just doesn't fit into any quantum thought experiment. I then
> realized that the P 
> operator for momentum must have a real value for its eigenvalues since it's
> Hermitian, BUT
> how can a real value represent momentum, which is a vector?  TY, AG
>
> The eigenvector would be momentum.
>

Sorry Brent - the measured momentum values are still eigenvalues.

Pick 3 orthogonal directions to measure the momentum, say x, y and z.

Then the momentum operators are -iℏ∂/∂x, -iℏ∂/∂y and -iℏ∂/∂z, and the 3 eigenvalues are the 3 components of momentum.

One could also write it in vector form iℏ∇, in which case the operator
has a vector-valued eigenvalue.

I don't think this is correct. Quantum operators are chosen to be Hermitian, that is, self-adjoint IIRC, so that their eigenvalues will be

real. This is something that can be proven. So the question remains; how can a real eigenvalue be a measured momentum, which

is a vector? AG

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

Brent

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 01:26:10AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:27:55 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Sorry Brent - the measured momentum values are still eigenvalues.
>
> Pick 3 orthogonal directions to measure the momentum, say x, y and z.
>
> Then the momentum operators are -iℏ∂/∂x, -iℏ∂/∂y and -iℏ∂/∂z, and the 3
> eigenvalues are the 3 components of momentum.
>
> One could also write it in vector form iℏ∇, in which case the operator
> has a vector-valued eigenvalue.
>
>
> I don't think this is correct. Quantum operators are chosen to be Hermitian,
> that is, self-adjoint IIRC, so that their eigenvalues will be
> real. This is something that can be proven. So the question remains; how can a
> real eigenvalue be a measured momentum, which
> is a vector? AG 

You missed my point completely. Momentum is a 3-vector, so the
momentum operator is 3-vector of hermitian operators, applied
elementwise over the wavefuction. The "eigenvalue" is a 3-vector,
applied elementwise over the state vector.

This is quantum mechanics 101 - any of the introductory books will
tell you the same - Ramamurti Shankar, Leonard Schiff, Emile
Durand. I'm surprised Brent made such a howler, but we're all human
(for how long, I wonder, give JC's comments), and he's picked up
plenty of howlers I've made over the years.

Cheers


--

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 3:34:12 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 01:26:10AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:27:55 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Sorry Brent - the measured momentum values are still eigenvalues.
>
> Pick 3 orthogonal directions to measure the momentum, say x, y and z.
>
> Then the momentum operators are -iℏ∂/∂x, -iℏ∂/∂y and -iℏ∂/∂z, and the 3
> eigenvalues are the 3 components of momentum.
>
> One could also write it in vector form iℏ∇, in which case the operator
> has a vector-valued eigenvalue.
>
>
> I don't think this is correct. Quantum operators are chosen to be Hermitian,
> that is, self-adjoint IIRC, so that their eigenvalues will be
> real. This is something that can be proven. So the question remains; how can a
> real eigenvalue be a measured momentum, which
> is a vector? AG 

You missed my point completely. Momentum is a 3-vector, so the
momentum operator is 3-vector of hermitian operators, applied
elementwise over the wavefuction. The "eigenvalue" is a 3-vector,
applied elementwise over the state vector.

Thanks. Yes, I missed your point but I get it now, and Brent's link also

helped. AG

[Brent Meeker]

They can have an effect, but they can't send information.  There is correlation which you probably think means one can send information, but remember QM results are random.  You can't control your end of the entangled pair and so you can't send a message.  The correlation is only noticed when you bring two sets of measurements together.  Here's what a Bell's test experiment looks like that won the Nobel prize for showing that QM correlation is stronger than can be explained classically:



See how each record at A and at B are random.  So no signal can be sent.

Brent

IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? AG

68b

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3ca191e-7752-45ea-b950-cf74ae80e924n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. 

I asserted no such thing! 

I said IF quantum mechanics is local and deterministic then it can't be realistic. And Many Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and deterministic  then it can't be local. And pilot wave theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and local then it can't be deterministic. And objective collapse is realistic and local but not deterministic. 

And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right.  

You can't be realistic and local and deterministic and still be compatible with the violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta give. 

Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know, Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third favorite is "other",  and my fourth favorite is pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and the universe's favorites may not be the same thing.  

> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG 

Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to quantum mechanics, but that fact doesn't enable you to send information faster than light, so it's of no help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated.  

Because information can't be sent, some people say there is instantaneous influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG

 

Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously, apparently entangled pairs can.

They can have an effect, but they can't send information.

An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later you're back home.  And now that you're back we compare our lists of "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.

That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you got back, and that took over four years because  Alpha Centauri is four light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time. You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tne

[Alan Grayson]

Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner, since if it couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 3:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner [faster than light] 

Maybe. If somebody can prove that is true then we will know that Quantum Mechanics is non-local, and the violation of Bell's Inequality does not rule out non-local hidden variables, it only rules out local hidden variables.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lsg

[Alan Grayson]

My opinion, FWIW, is that we have a major flaw or insufficiency in our concept of space, noting that for photons, all distances shrink to zero. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/6/2024 1:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. 

I asserted no such thing! 

I said IF quantum mechanics is local and deterministic then it can't be realistic. And Many Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and deterministic  then it can't be local. And pilot wave theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and local then it can't be deterministic. And objective collapse is realistic and local but not deterministic. 

And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right.  

You can't be realistic and local and deterministic and still be compatible with the violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta give. 

Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know, Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third favorite is "other",  and my fourth favorite is pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and the universe's favorites may not be the same thing.  

> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG 

Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to quantum mechanics, but that fact doesn't enable you to send information faster than light, so it's of no help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated.  

Because information can't be sent, some people say there is instantaneous influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG

 

Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously, apparently entangled pairs can.

They can have an effect, but they can't send information.

An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

I can only give you an argument.  I can't understand it for you.

Brent

 

  There is correlation which you probably think means one can send information, but remember QM results are random.  You can't control your end of the entangled pair and so you can't send a message.  The correlation is only noticed when you bring two sets of measurements together.  Here's what a Bell's test experiment looks like that won the Nobel prize for showing that QM correlation is stronger than can be explained classically:



See how each record at A and at B are random.  So no signal can be sent.

Brent

IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled.  Some property of the particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So in Hilbert space, instead of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B.  So Alice can measure it and B can measure it.  But neither can change or control the measurement.  It's random.

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tne

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7378a08-c88b-43d7-bfde-2139b45ec6f8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 1:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 11:00:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 7:45:55 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earlier you asserted that QM is local. You were very certain. 

I asserted no such thing! 

I said IF quantum mechanics is local and deterministic then it can't be realistic. And Many Worlds is local and deterministic but not realistic. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and deterministic  then it can't be local. And pilot wave theory is realistic and deterministic but not local. 

And I said IF quantum mechanics is realistic and local then it can't be deterministic. And objective collapse is realistic and local but not deterministic. 

And that's why the fact that Bell's inequality is violated can't rule out any of those three ideas, I prefer Many Worlds but time will tell if I'm right.  

You can't be realistic and local and deterministic and still be compatible with the violation of Bell's Inequality, something's gotta give. 

Many Worlds is my favorite as I'm sure you know, Objective Collapse is my second favorite, my third favorite is "other",  and my fourth favorite is pilot wave theory. But of course my favorites and the universe's favorites may not be the same thing.  

> But don't Bell experiments strongly suggest instantaneous action at a distance, which suggests that QM is NON-LOCAL? AG 

Correlations can happen instantaneously thanks to quantum mechanics, but that fact doesn't enable you to send information faster than light, so it's of no help in trying to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated.  

Because information can't be sent, some people say there is instantaneous influencing and this is sufficient to claim QM is non-local. AG

 

Whereas observers cannot send information instantaneously, apparently entangled pairs can.

They can have an effect, but they can't send information.

An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

I can only give you an argument.  I can't understand it for you.

Brent

All I am asking is what does an "effect" consist of? Many physicists think of instantaneous action at a distance. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later you're back home.  And now that you're back we compare our lists of "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.

That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you got back, and that took over four years because  Alpha Centauri is four light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time. You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins.  

Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner, since if it couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled.  Some property of the particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So in Hilbert space, instead of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B.  So Alice can measure it and B can measure it.  But neither can change or control the measurement.  It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other. But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual content, if it exists. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

No, you're claiming it doesn't make sense to have an effect but not send information.  If you looked at the vu-graph I posted it's easy to see that each end gets random results and the effect is only seen when they are compared.

Brent

 

  There is correlation which you probably think means one can send information, but remember QM results are random.  You can't control your end of the entangled pair and so you can't send a message.  The correlation is only noticed when you bring two sets of measurements together.  Here's what a Bell's test experiment looks like that won the Nobel prize for showing that QM correlation is stronger than can be explained classically:



See how each record at A and at B are random.  So no signal can be sent.

Brent

IYO, does this effect the status of QM as a non-local theory? 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685a66c5-0cd9-4fdc-8ac6-84e9842028a8n%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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4aae765f-2739-4962-9738-ac2cdc9e7f6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later you're back home.  And now that you're back we compare our lists of "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.

That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you got back, and that took over four years because  Alpha Centauri is four light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time. You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins.  

Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner, since if it couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled.  Some property of the particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So in Hilbert space, instead of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B.  So Alice can measure it and B can measure it.  But neither can change or control the measurement.  It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other. But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tne

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7378a08-c88b-43d7-bfde-2139b45ec6f8n%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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b73428e5-d8ec-4486-bfc2-c9c957e5818en%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 4:53:37 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/7/2024 2:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 3:22:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/6/2024 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An effect between entangled pairs but no information sent? Doesn't make sense. AG

It's weird but it does not produce a logical contradiction. Suppose you and I have quantum entangled coins, I stay on earth but you get in your Spaceship and travel at nearly the speed of light for a little over four years to Alpha Centauri, then you slow down and start flipping your coin and I do the same on Earth. We both write down a record of all the heads and tails we got and both of us conclude that the sequences we got are perfectly random. Then you get back in your spaceship and four years later you're back home.  And now that you're back we compare our lists of "random" coin flips and we find that the two sequences are identical, we both got the same "random" sequence.

That's very weird but neither of us noticed anything was strange until you got back, and that took over four years because  Alpha Centauri is four light years away. If we try to use our coins discern a message by Morse code with heads meaning a dot and tails meaning a dash it won't work because your coin will only come up the way you want it to 50% of the time. You could of course force your coin to come up heads or tails, but if you did that you would destroy the quantum entanglement because it is very delicate, and then you would just have two ordinary unrelated coins.  

Two observers can't send information to each other because neither knows what will come up in a coin flip if the outcome is modeled quantum mechanically, that is irreducibly random , but each element of a pair of entangled particles can send information to its partner, since if it couldn't, they wouldn't be entangled. AG

First of all you need to realize that "entangled particles" is just shorthand. Particles aren't entangled.  Some property of the particles is entangled, e.g. spin or momentum or position.  So in Hilbert space, instead of there being two different vector components for the spin of A and the spin of B, there is only one vector for the spin of both A and B.  So Alice can measure it and B can measure it.  But neither can change or control the measurement.  It's random.

Brent

Yes, I am aware of that. Alice and Bob can't send messages to each other. But does either of the particles send anything to the other? That's the issue. It's called an "effect". But an effect must have some actual content, if it exists. AG

The "content" is they share a vector in Hilbert space.

Brent

Have you ever seen a vector in Hilbert space? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

If the photons hitting your eye weren't a vector in Hilbert space you wouldn't see anything.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Were people born before Hilbert blind? You're confusing the map from the territory. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

Are directions and amplitudes map or territory?

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/939207ad-4edd-462c-9f19-fb50d6aaf034n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

The map. Ultimately we're seeking the physicality underlying the correlations. AG

[Brent Meeker]

And what would you fancy as an "underlying physicality"?

Brent

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c53159e9-2832-4b75-9638-81a4cbbf3c35n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:54 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

qmc

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 2:38:36 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

And what would you fancy as an "underlying physicality"?

Brent

Since you're comfortable wirh your explanation of entangled particles -- an appleal to vectors in a Hilbert space -- I see no reason to disturb your certainty. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, November 8, 2024 at 5:46:16 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:54 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it. Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom? TY, AG 

q

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

 

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

v0o

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

 

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.  

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

v

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

You seem to be saying that non-local means one feels the effect of an event before it occurred. That's how it reads. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

 

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.  

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and goes in either direction depending on the reference frame.  Which is a good reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement, and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance. So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

 

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.  

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and goes in either direction depending on the reference frame.  Which is a good reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the beginning, when the pair was created.  They shared this value in Hilbert space.  Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on.  We get the empirically correct prediction for every experiment.  It's just not a nursery story about little balls.  Five hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to move.  You've just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.  You need to update your intuition.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34474212-158b-4f60-8c35-6dd6dfcaec11n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 5:52:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/9/2024 10:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 4:39:37 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Why do you characterize the explanation of the possible insufficiency of our concept of space, a NON-local hidden variable?

>> Because if an event occurred 4 light years away and happened LESS than 4 years ago and yet it still affected you then that affect was non-local, because that's what "non-local" means. Is such an affect possible, does Quantum Mechanics permit it? Nobody knows, but if I were betting I would bet not.

> Your first sentence requires IMO, more precision. Please re-write it.

No.

 

>Are you referring to faster-than-SoL phenomenom?

Obviously.  

You're too cocky. No. Not faster than SoL, but instantaneous. Entangled particles are non-separable. AG

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and goes in either direction depending on the reference frame.  Which is a good reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the beginning, when the pair was created.  They shared this value in Hilbert space. 

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on.  We get the empirically correct prediction for every experiment.  It's just not a nursery story about little balls.  Five hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to move.  You've just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.  You need to update your intuition.

 

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it? Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion; namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than exactly? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

What IMO you are obtuse to, is the likely fact that Bell experiments with entangled pairs might indicate an as yet unknown property of space. AG

[Brent Meeker]

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than exactly? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26fac391-a863-4158-aa32-7e3942ad891en%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement. The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tmt 

[John Clark]

I should've said you will always get 1/2 or -1/2.

[Alan Grayson]

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in Hilbert space? AG

[Alan Grayson]

The maximal that a vector in Hilbert space can offer, is the result of Bell experiment measurements. It can't explain the mode of contact between pairs of entangled particles separated beyond causal distance. Nor Have I ever heard of any in-depth explanation of this result. You're the only one I have heard of, who not only thinks the problem has been solved, but moreover, thinks the problem is solved "exactly". So, pardon me when I conclude you've seduced yourself into believing in an imaginary solution which, AFAIK, is totally unsupported within the physics community. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 5:46:00 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

Maybe that's true, maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement.

I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be used. AG

 

The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 because the quantum wave demands that. 

CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance. Then, along the same axis, one of the pair is measured as spin UP,  and there's a correlation with the other pair member measuring spin DN, so conservation of spin is satisfied. So there's a mystery; how can the correlation exist when the electrons are far beyond causal distance? Is this correct, or does Brent have the "exact" solution and now awaits for his Nobel prize? AG

[Brent Meeker]

I didn't say there's "no mystery".  I said we correctly predict every experiment.  My point is that there is no more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity.  When are you going to answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?"  Little green men?

Brent.

[Brent Meeker]

That's an oversimplified version, one that would be satisfied in classical mechanics.  Try reading up on the experiment.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Anything faster than light is instantaneous in some reference frame; and goes in either direction depending on the reference frame.  Which is a good reason for supposing no information can be transmitted FoL.

Brent

That's one data point. Another is the fact that neither member of an entangled pair has a preexisting spin before measurement,

I know you mean no fixed spin direction before measurement, but it does have a spin because when you measure it you never get zero spin.

and that when one of a pair is measured, the other seems to know that value is regardless of the perceived separation distance.

The the way to look at is that there was only one spin state from the beginning, when the pair was created.  They shared this value in Hilbert space. 

Yes, I am aware of that. AG

Nothing "traveled" between them.

So it's reasonable to say we don't know what the hell is going on. AG

We do know exactly what's going on.  We get the empirically correct prediction for every experiment.  It's just not a nursery story about little balls.  Five hundred years ago someone with your attitude would be demanding to know what spirit caused the measuring instrument needle to move.  You've just gotten used to mathematical explanations involving little balls bouncing around so you don't question Newtonian mathematics.  You need to update your intuition.

 

Brent

Then you must believe that EM waves are continuous because ME's predict it?

Why should I when QM predicts otherwise and correctly predicts things Maxwell's equations don't?

Should I update my intuition so it conforms to your illusion;

No you should update your intuition so it conforms the currently most accurate known theory.

namely, that you actually know what's going, and no less than exactly? This is hubris in its purist form. In fact, in this context you know nothing. You suffer the illusion of thinking some reference to Hilbert space vectors is somehow dispositive of the mystery. AG

An you think you can't know anything until it conforms to your prejudices.

Brent

Can you cite any peer reviewed article on Bell experiments which supports your opinion, that there's no mystery in the results since each pair of entangled entities shares a common vector in Hilbert space? AG

I didn't say there's "no mystery".  I said we correctly predict every experiment.  My point is that there is no more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity.  When are you going to answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?"  Little green men?

Brent

Why bring up Newtonian gravity, which is known to assume instantaneous action at a distance? What would I consider an answer? I don't have an answer, and neither do you. Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's going on. If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Please cease your BS; it's unbecoming. Where is my description of Bell experiments oversimplified? More important, experiments in classical mechanics do not, and could not imply influences at distances exceeding causality, other than in Newtonian gravity which we know is wrong. It's just a good approximation for weak fields, such as within the solar system.That's the core of the mystery -- apparent influences at distances exceeding causality -- which you claimed is explained "exactly" by some Hilbert space vector, or are you now backtracking on that claim? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

I don't need an answer. I have one.  You're the one who asked a question but can't even say what an answer would be like.

Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.

If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG

It did.  Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

My initial thought is that pairs of entangled electrons might just appear to be separated. Perhaps our concept of space is lacking in something fundamental. But this is just my speculation. However, it seems simplistic to sweep the problem under the rug, so to speak, and claim it's beena solved.  AG

Getting the right number in an experiment doesn't imply anyone knows what's going on.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence.

 

Here you are quite mistaken; mistaking the map for the territory. Some people think that calling the situation as "influencing" evades the core issue, which is why the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances exceeding causality. I've seen videos of physicists struggling with this issue, and never heard of anyone other than you, who claimed this problem has been solved. AG

BTW, my description of Bell experiments was deliberately simplistic since I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived, although I am aware that statistics are measured/gathered along three axes. AG

If someone did, it would have appeared in some peer reviewed article, and so far you have been unable to supply one. Not a surprise. AG

It did.  Correct predictions have appeared in many articles

Where? I don't recall any links you claim to have offered. But like I said, in this situation correct predictions aren't sufficient IMO, to explain the results. AG 

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement.

> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be used. AG

It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change. 

To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  

So why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of them logical. 

1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe is infinite. 

2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving because I don't feel myself moving. 

 

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands that. 

> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance.

You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. 

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

 > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived

I tried to explain that to you in a very long post.  Basically I showed that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

 > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances exceeding causality.

I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence "information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph would still be impossible. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eeb

t

[Alan Grayson]

When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled the experimenters. Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate explanation, but clearly didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to close ostensible loopholes, such as the usual causality by information being transferred at light speed. But the puzzling result persisted, so they did experiments where a pair of entangled entities were separated beyond causal distance. Why so great efforts to close loopholes when they had those Hilbert space vectors, which according to you, Brent, solves the problem "exactly"? What do you know, that generations of experimenters had no knowledge of? AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/11/2024 6:07 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement.

> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be used. AG

It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.

No, it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have "weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule, but everything in each world is the same except things that depend on the measurement result.  But since "measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction) there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each one causes the world to split.  It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world splits instantaneously or at the speed of light.

Brent

To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  

So why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of them logical. 

1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe is infinite. 

2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving because I don't feel myself moving. 

 

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands that. 

> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance.

You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. 

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

 > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived

I tried to explain that to you in a very long post.  Basically I showed that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

 > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances exceeding causality.

I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence "information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph would still be impossible. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eeb

t

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3cEFWmRk6rAvX06Ssa%3DpW6c3i8Pc2r6VeSaNfEQRZUpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

I call B.S. on that.  Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what they expected.  Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories were right.  What's your reference?

Note that they had Hilbert space for a candidate explanation, but clearly didn't find it sufficient. Then they tried to close ostensible loopholes,

Those were loop holes that would have allowed communication between the Alice and Bob measurements, whereas the QM prediction was independent of communication.  That's why it was important to close the loop holes.

Brent

such as the usual causality by information being transferred at light speed. But the puzzling result persisted, so they did experiments where a pair of entangled entities were separated beyond causal distance. Why so great efforts to close loopholes when they had those Hilbert space vectors, which according to you, Brent, solves the problem "exactly"? What do you know, that generations of experimenters had no knowledge of? 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c360f8b-40ec-434b-ac7a-ed8cbe55741fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled the experimenters. AG

I call B.S. on that.  Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what they expected.  Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories were right.  What's your reference?

So Bell was wrong in his expectations because he didn't believe in QM? Is that your claim now? More important, since you previously acknowledged that some mystery remains despite what some vector in Hilbert space indicates, what exactly is the content of that mystery? TY, AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 11, 2024 at 7:08:13 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 6:51 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  maybe things are realistic, maybe an entangled pair of electrons has ONE AND ONLY ONE spin axis before a measurement. But maybe that's false, maybe an entangled pair has EVERY axis spin that is not forbidden by the quantum wave before a measurement.

> I thought the choice of measurement axis is arbitrary, and any axis can be used. AG

It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change. 

To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  

So why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of them logical. 

1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe is infinite. 

2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving because I don't feel myself moving. 

 

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands that. 

> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance.

You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. 

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

 > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived

I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. 

 TY,  but you didn't explictly prove it, and that's why I didn't get it. It's in my to-do list. AG

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.

 

>No,

Yes!

> it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have "weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule,

Please name a change that is NOT "very special", a change in which Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a probability of occurrence, even in principle.    

> everything in each world is the same except things that depend on the measurement result. 

The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that don't depend on measurement results will not change because if they did then they would depend on measurement results. 

 

> "measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)

Exactly, but .....  of measurement you just said "it's a very special kind of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you about putting "measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the only quantum Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning.  

 

> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each one causes the world to split.

Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about? 

> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world splits instantaneously or at the speed of light.

Many Worlds makes no prediction about that because it makes no observable difference, you are free to assume that the split is instantaneous or that it propagates at the speed of light.  

> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories were right

Bell thought NON-LOCAL hidden variable theories were right, that's why he was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and deterministic but non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same reason that Roger Penrose does, they both thought that the very idea of the universe splitting is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth considering; but they both forgot that being very strange and being logically self-contradictory are not the same thing. I think if Many Worlds is untrue then something even stranger is. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

btw

 

To me it seems like experiments are virtually shouting that Many Worlds is true, and it's the simplest explanation; unlike objective collapse it doesn't need to add a new term to Schrodinger's Equation that makes it non-deterministic. And unlike pilot wave it doesn't need a second extremely complicated equation, in addition to Schrodinger's Equation, that does nothing but keep track of which world is "real" and which one is not. You have to work very hard to get rid of those Many Worlds that are an inherent consequence of Schrodinger's Equation and for that reason some have called pilot wave the Disappearing Worlds Theory.  

So why hasn't Many Worlds been the dominant interpretation since the 1920s? I think there are two reasons, both of them emotional, neither of them logical. 

1) It can't be right because it would make the universe too big. Strangely this sentiment is expressed even among those who insist that the universe is infinite. 

2) It can't be right because I never feel myself splitting. This is similar to the objection that Galileo heard, the Earth can't be moving because I don't feel myself moving. 

 

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality cannot rule out either possibility. We do know that IF the world is realistic THEN it cannot be both local and deterministic. We also know that you will never measure the spin of an electron to be zero or one because that is forbidden by the quantum wave, instead you will always get 1/2 [or -1/2] because the quantum wave demands that. 

> CMIIAW, but I think Bell experiments are done this way; an entangled pair of electrons are created with zero net spin, and sent in opposite directions, far beyond causal distance.

You are correct except that they used correlated photons and polarizing filters instead of electrons and Stern Gerlach magnets (which measure spin), they could've used electrons but they use photons because they are easier to deal with experimentally than electrons. 

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did there is a 100% chance the other in entangled photon will make it through your filter, but if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

 > I don't YET know how Bell's inequality is derived

I tried to explain that to you in a very long post.  Basically I showed that if you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

 > the Bell experiments suggest transference of information at distances exceeding causality.

I doubt it's correct but pilot wave theory speculates that an influence can travel faster than light, but it would be wrong to call that influence "information". Even if pilot wave is correct, a faster than light telegraph would still be impossible. 

 

eeb

t

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I tried to explain that to you in a very long post. 

>  TY,  but you didn't explictly prove it, and that's why I didn't get it. It's in my to-do list. AG

I proved that if the [COS (X)]^2  rule is true, and it's been tested for centuries and has been right every time, and if local hidden variables are the source of quantum weirdness 

then it's not just strange but LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Bell's Inequality to be violated. This would still be true even if tomorrow somebody finds a theory that was completely different from quantum mechanics but can still do everything quantum mechanics can  do, and in addition do things that quantum mechanics can NOT do, such as explain what happens at the center of a Black Hole or at the first instance of the Big Bang; this is because this wonderful new theory would still have to be compatible with the [COS (X)]^2 rule because experiment demands it, and experiment is king. 

The facts are that Bell's Inequality IS violated, therefore local hidden variables cannot be the source of quantum weirdness. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

nhv

[Alan Grayson]

I've asked this of Brent and awaiting his reply; what EXACTLY is weird? TY, AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/12/2024 4:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

When they started doing Bell experiments, around 1970, the results puzzled the experimenters. AG

I call B.S. on that.  Anybody who believed QM was correct got exactly what they expected.  Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories were right.  What's your reference?

So Bell was wrong in his expectations because he didn't believe in QM? Is that your claim now? More important, since you previously acknowledged that some mystery remains despite what some vector in Hilbert space indicates, what exactly is the content of that mystery? TY, AG

So you dodged the demand for a reference, from which I conclude you made it up.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/12/2024 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange, especially because in most quantum interpretations the definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change.

 

>No,

Yes!

> it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to split into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds have "weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule,

Please name a change that is NOT "very special", a change in which Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a probability of occurrence, even in principle.  

Why?  Do you suppose that because many other formulations would also be very special, that would excuse your formulation that measurement is simply a change.  It is not special at all in the sense that it is not specific.  It includes no specification that realizes the Born rule nor process for realizing it either via "weights" or "branch counting".

 

> everything in each world is the same except things that depend on the measurement result. 

The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that don't depend on measurement results will not change because if they did then they would depend on measurement results.

The key word in the above is "the" which is absent between "on" and "measurement".

 

 

> "measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)

Exactly, but .....  of measurement you just said "it's a very special kind of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you about putting "measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the only quantum Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning.  

 

> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each one causes the world to split.

Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about?

How the Born rule gets realized.  You say it has something to do with measurement, but that is "simply change".

> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world splits instantaneously or at the speed of light.

Many Worlds makes no prediction

Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable.  May be that's why it's so successful, along with other religions.

about that because it makes no observable difference, you are free to assume that the split is instantaneous or that it propagates at the speed of light.  

> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable theories were right

Bell thought NON-LOCAL hidden variable theories were right, that's why he was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and deterministic but non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same reason that Roger Penrose does, they both thought that the very idea of the universe splitting is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth considering; but they both forgot that being very strange and being logically self-contradictory are not the same thing. I think if Many Worlds is untrue then something even stranger is.

Would it be stranger if, among possibilities with non-zero probabilities, one occurred and other's didn't?

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

And now you're a demonstrated BS artist. I asked you a simple question which you refuse to answer. Listen carefully; what I wrote was my IMPRESSION from discussions of Bell experiments, not something I read in a reference article. And if you read JC on this thread, he has the SAME impression, and I asked him the same question. I expect he won't dodge the question. AG 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each one causes the world to split.

Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about?

 

> How the Born rule gets realized.  You say it has something to do with measurement, but that is "simply change".

NO, that is exactly what I did NOT say, or if I did it was the written equivalent of a fart! I said the way the Born rule gets realized has something to do with change, not necessarily a measurement. All measurements involve a change, but not all changes are a measurement; this is because "measurement" implies that a consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved; but "change" implies no such thing. 

>Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable. 

Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function collapsing.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

  ses

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 9:06 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function collapsing.

Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need for a physical collapse. The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a physically real object -- that is an additional assumption in the Many-worlds interpretation. If one does not make that assumption, the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating the evolution of probabilities, and there are no extra worlds....

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function collapsing.

> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need for a physical collapse.

If something works, and in this case works really really well, then it is not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that works so well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by "real".  

> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a physically real object

True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard ball does not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object either, therefore I would conclude that the quantum wave function is as real or unreal as a billiard ball.   

> the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating the evolution of probabilities

OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you should stop using it to calculate things after a "measurement" (whatever that ill defined word is supposed to mean) is made? 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

rmw

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/12/2024 2:05 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not more, and each one causes the world to split.

Exactly!  So I forget, what are we arguing about?

 

> How the Born rule gets realized.  You say it has something to do with measurement, but that is "simply change".

NO, that is exactly what I did NOT say, or if I did it was the written equivalent of a fart! I said the way the Born rule gets realized has something to do with change, not necessarily a measurement. All measurements involve a change,

"Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a change." JKC

but not all changes are a measurement; this is because "measurement" implies that a consciousness, or at least an intelligence, is involved; but "change" implies no such thing. 

>Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable. 

Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function collapsing.

What you are "reminding" me of is just your interpretation of Schroedinger's equation.  I think it just says some possibility realizations are more probable than others. It doesn't say anything about world's splitting either.  I'd say postulating the existence of un-realized world's if a pretty severe violation of Occam's Razaor.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/12/2024 2:39 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function collapsing.

> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need for a physical collapse.

If something works, and in this case works really really well, then it is not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that works so well is not real.

It works really really well as an epistemic theory.  It doesn't work work well as an ontologic theory because it predicts bazillions of unobservable worlds.

Brent

And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by "real".  

> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a physically real object

True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard ball does not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object either, therefore I would conclude that the quantum wave function is as real or unreal as a billiard ball.   

> the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating the evolution of probabilities

OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you should stop using it to calculate things after a "measurement" (whatever that ill defined word is supposed to mean) is made? 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

rmw

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tn_9A4Pn6aKxoqkF_X9AN8WgMM5ysMQp5phZ_0z%2B_Jw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:43 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd say postulating the existence of un-realized world's if a pretty severe violation of Occam's Razaor.

I would certainly agree with you about that, and if Many Worlds just assumed that all those worlds existed then the idea would be idiotic, fortunately it makes no such postulate. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

kwc

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 3:52:11 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:43 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd say postulating the existence of un-realized world's if a pretty severe violation of Occam's Razaor.

I would certainly agree with you about that, and if Many Worlds just assumed that all those worlds existed then the idea would be idiotic, fortunately it makes no such postulate. 

 John K Clark 

But MW does assume that every possible outcome must be realized in some world, and S's equation does not require this.  AG

[Alan Grayson]

To be more specific, I recently viewed a colloquium where Roger Penrose was a participate along with several other physicists in which advanced topics were discussed. One participant, whose name I cannot recall, claimed that because of Bell experiment results, we are on the verge of a major breakthough in our understanding of space. I lost the link when I had a problem with my computer. If I can find it, I'll post it. AG