tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post5552081839671825100..comments2015-02-11T22:19:33.885-08:00Comments on Maison Fleury: Superposition, Decoherence, Schrodinger's Cat and other magical lies my professors told me. Marc Fleurynoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-69563674329312330672014-08-05T00:02:15.302-07:002014-08-05T00:02:15.302-07:00(yes on identity, but that is a past one :))
Onto...(yes on identity, but that is a past one :))<br /><br />Onto your points. Yes, the observer doesn't have to be human or anything, just that anything interacting at some point with the system will trigger intermittence. The intermittence happens, this is why we observe statistics. But there cannot be intermittence between dead and alive. It is mostly the notion of 'superposition' that I attack here. That something is in state A and B AT THE SAME TIME is what is non-sensical in retrospect. Marc Fleuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557608193924044365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-33717903609281771642014-08-04T18:06:52.261-07:002014-08-04T18:06:52.261-07:00You are quite right that sloppy expositors make it...You are quite right that sloppy expositors make it sound like "you killed the cat with your thoughts" but careful ones explain that an "observer" is not necessarily a human or even alive, but could be a detector. I do not have a good physics background but I guess you are criticizing that notion too? It sounds like you are but your later comment "it's not your thoughts that kill the cat" make it sound as if you are *only* criticizing the idea that human thoughts kill the cat.. Maybe you wanted to just use the metaphor :-)<br /><br />Second, wikipedia under "mary worlds" gives to rebuttals of why it does not violate "conservation of energy" but again I do not have the physics background (I have a PhD in math..and even there it is pure, not applied, so far removed..and more on other projects (education etc) these days anyway)..<br /><br />Third and last: have you read the expository article "Quantum Mysteries for Anyone"? Anyone with basic Probability 101 math class and some patience can follow this article..it quotes Einstein at beginning, telling a friend why he does not trust QM: "do you really believe that, the moon is 'not there' when you don't look at it?" But as the article shows, and then gives mathematical proof of (assuming you trust the 'if you build this experiment, the results will be such-and-such)" the fact that: "we can now PROVE that the moon really is NOT there when you don't look at it!". Metaphorically: not the moon itself, not the (dead) cat, but on the particle level, the article shows. Interested in a physicist's reaction.<br /><br />You created JBOSS, you're Marc yes? That's how I found this blog. If not, then your blog is still very interesting (though time limits how often I can return) If you did create it, thanks..I own shares of Red Hat linux, you have helped that company do well :-) and more importantly helpful to the world in middleware etc etc. Regards and respect to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-19314309619737984212014-06-06T12:27:58.768-07:002014-06-06T12:27:58.768-07:00In other words, the cat is dead, was always dead a...In other words, the cat is dead, was always dead and you didn't kill it with your mind. Marc Fleuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557608193924044365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-33356187054308910882014-06-06T12:26:53.190-07:002014-06-06T12:26:53.190-07:00Well, the whole 'unseen degrees of freedom&quo...Well, the whole 'unseen degrees of freedom" is in fact the name of the game in this study. Einstein used to call it "hidden variables" and the thing with hidden variables is that Bell inequalities strictly differentiate between hidden variables and classical QM. The experiment of Aspect/GHZ rule in favor of classical QM. In this interpretation the 'hidden variable' is the field itself in a way and how it interacts with the particle in a feedback loop. In this interpretation 'making sense' of the classical Copenhaguen imagery becomes superfluous as we are considering different 'object'. Where QM speaks of a 'superposition' in a hilbert space (read: being in several states at once) this approach speaks of intermittence, different time slices where you are in different states and the jumps are due to chaotic dynamics (in the mathematical sense: with the presence of intermittences aka jumping around). Reconciling this interpretation which is fundamentally deterministic (even if chaotic and thus statistical in outlook) with the more abstract objects QM introduces may not be relevant after all. Marc Fleuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557608193924044365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-61286589443461882932014-06-06T07:23:00.217-07:002014-06-06T07:23:00.217-07:00Thanks for the reply Marc. Classical computation i...Thanks for the reply Marc. Classical computation is energy consuming and to store a bit of concluded information an entropy increasing process. I think Quantum Computation raises objections quite similar to the ones you mention with Everett's many world interpretation.<br /><br />Is there a name for an interpretation where the word create in the sentence: "CREATES a separate universe" is replaced by "CONSIDERS a separate universe" (at the risk of opening the discussion to the meaning of considers") ? Quantum computation (if it was in fact true) would require at minimum the latter to be possible. Other than that we would need an alternate description in which unseen degrees of freedom within a single universe take the burden of computation. Could such degrees of freedom exist in the time division phenomena that you have described? I am not sure, although I think probably not. Thanks again!czARgbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10350142559507915016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-82850119292055761402014-06-06T06:18:38.155-07:002014-06-06T06:18:38.155-07:00I am not an expert on quantum computation but thos...I am not an expert on quantum computation but those who are are throwing the BS flag gladly, namely that the 'superposition' they thing they observe is not there. I have no idea what this model says about that except that in this picture the field is a very 'fragile' construct and as soon as you interact with the particle and the field you destroy the association and lose the QM dynamics which are nothing more than chaotic dynamics in intermittence. <br /><br />The Everett many world interpretation has long been considered absolute garbage by most people. What are we to make of energy conservation? if every little QM observation CREATES a separate universe then you need to have double the energy for everything that happens?. But this is the kind of 'non-sense' that doesn't even need to be addressed in this picture. It just doesn't make any sense. The fact that it is still around is just because it makes for good bla bla and cocktail conversation. <br />Marc Fleuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557608193924044365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-663998076511109850.post-52332204427903460782014-06-04T08:17:37.626-07:002014-06-04T08:17:37.626-07:00What does this suggest in terms of quantum computa...What does this suggest in terms of quantum computation? I suspect this would rule out a many worlds interpretation and along with it the possibility for quantum computation, if in fact the many states of superposition do not occur simultaneously, but in time division.czARgbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10350142559507915016noreply@blogger.com