> On 7 Aug 2019, at 06:08, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:54 PM smitra <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 07-08-2019 02:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > It is called the "relative state" interpretation for a reason. The > > entanglement with the environmental degrees of freedom that leads to > > the recording of the result in the environment is relative to each > > possible experimental outcome. Within the decoherence time (typically > > of the order of a few nanoseconds or less) these "relative states" > > become effectively orthogonal, and the measurement becomes > > irreversible. Because there is no longer any possibility of > > interference between the results, there is no longer any > > superposition. You guys seems so desperate to hold on to a > > superposition that no longer has any practical consequences. Get used > > to it -- measurements have definite outcomes. That is the fact that > > has to be incorporated into your theory. > > Yes, but this is relative to each component. The inability to > demonstrate interference does not demonstrate that there is no > superposition. > > If the superposition has no observable effect, can it be said to still exist? > > To prove that these superpositions really can vanish you > need to do an experiment that demonstrates a violation of unitary time > evolution of a completely isolated system. > > There is no such thing as a measurement on a completely isolated system. > > Saying that there is no > superposition just because in a particular experiment you cannot see a > particular signature of that anymore, is like saying that momentum isn't > conserved if we bounce a ball against the ground. The inability to > detect the change in the momentum of the Earth doesn't mean that there > is no such change. Unitary time evolution is established just as > rigorously as momentum conservation. > > Unitary evolution is an assumption.
Yes. It is called Quantum Mechanics (without collapse). > It is manifestly violated in essentially every experiment that is performed. > As I said, it serves no useful purpose to maintain that the superposition > persists after a definite result has been obtained. It might satisfy your > existential angst, but it has no role in physics. Physics is not metaphysics, especially if we are asked to not try to figure out what is happening. The whole point of Everett is to regain consistency of QM, without collapse, and it explains well the “illusion” of definite outcomes, which already does not exist in arithmetic. You seem to want to change the theory to save the illusion of definite outcome. Not only you need to abandon Mechanism (as you do), but here it looks you need to abandon QM, or to re-introduce some non unitary evolution in nature, but we know that this has never work, and it transforms non locality into action at a distance, also, not quite compatible with relativity. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTbediOozjPGS6OcO-DJgYqt1VzSrgq20BR9dqHPF1G8w%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTbediOozjPGS6OcO-DJgYqt1VzSrgq20BR9dqHPF1G8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AAAFE29A-513D-47A3-93A6-66DFD6A005A1%40ulb.ac.be.
