On Sunday, July 27, 2025 at 4:45:42 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 6:01 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:


*> What I seek is a mathematical proof that the UP state can be written as 
a linear sum of LT and RT states.*

 
*Nobody can provide a mathematical proof of that, if it was possible 
mathematicians would have predicted the laws of quantum mechanics about the 
year 1800, maybe earlier. That's why physicists need to do experiments, and 
in this case there is a physical proof. Suppose I've measured a beam of 
electrons and know they are all spin up. If you're right and they are 
independent qualities then that information will be of no help whatsoever 
in predicting what I will get if I decide to measure that beam and see if 
the electrons in it are spin left or spin right, but it is of considerable 
help.*

*Thanks to that information I can predict that 50% of the electrons will be 
spin left and 50% will be spin right. And I can also predict that if I 
decide to recheck the spin left particles to make sure they are still spin 
up I will find that they are NOT, and the same is true if I measure the 
spin right particles. So I can know if an electron is spin up or spin 
down, OR I can know if an electron is spin left or spin right, BUT I can't 
know both, and I could if they were independent qualities. So you're wrong 
and I'm right, it's as simple as that.       *

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>


*I'm not disputing the experimental results, but it's hardly obvious that 
this means UP (or DN) can be written as a linear sum of RT and LT as it 
violates the basic rules of vector spaces. 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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/306cba05-24be-42f7-8a88-a5e59c904685n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to