« first day (4526 days earlier)      last day (403 days later) » 

2:03 PM
I shall summarize our discussions : A collection of objects is something that cant be defined, but we just agree on what the idea is. We take inspiration from truths about these collections to write down a string manipulation system like ZFC using a precise language like First Order logic.
BUT we also add some axioms like the "axiom of infinity" which is based on our feelings about infinity, and is not necessarily backed by some collection. In fact, such a collection doesnt exist at least in the scientific falsification sense. But the resulting axiomatic system is useful for applications, so no one needs to give a shit about what existence means.
 
I think insisting to bring the notion of a string into this is a bit weird
that is very much not necessary
 
Yeah, I did write that strings are just used as a precise language. Natural language is alright too
 
Also like I don't think ZFC was particularly designed to be a set theory as applied to human reason
It was very much made with mathematics in mind
 
ZF(C) is very much a direct response to Russell's paradox
 
It's far from a unique foundation of math as well
 
2:07 PM
the motivation here is more or less "find an axiom system that makes all the math we already did work but doesn't run into Russell's paradox or something like that"
it's not supposed to reflect any kind of "intuition" or our "feelings about infinity"
 
Yeah, I mean math can b practically done without ZFC. We just need a precise system like a parent to go to when all else seems hopeless
 
It just became the default of math for some historical reasons
Like I don't think ZFC is a good fit for defining the intuitive notion of a collection
It doesn't allow ur-elements
 
whatb is ur-elements
 
@PM2Ring better late than never :)
 
In set theory, a branch of mathematics, an urelement or ur-element (from the German prefix ur-, 'primordial') is an object that is not a set, but that may be an element of a set. It is also referred to as an atom or individual. == Theory == There are several different but essentially equivalent ways to treat urelements in a first-order theory. One way is to work in a first-order theory with two sorts, sets and urelements, with a ∈ b only defined when b is a set. In this case, if U is an urelement, it makes no sense to say X ∈ U {\displaystyle...
You can't define a cat in ZFC
All your sets eventually contain nothing
 
2:12 PM
Yeah, I mean u cant even define collections or objects in ZFC
Things that come for free with consciousness have to be taken for granted
ZFC is just a precise language for applications
Which u dont even need for most applications
But its like daddy to cry back to when informal math seems unclear
 
never once has anything that was unclear to me been made clear by applying more set theory
 
Lol
 
what do you apply in those cases
 
Idk about that. Maybe if "more" is using like isomorphism to a group where the algebra is simpler to grasp, it would be a possible exception
Although maybe I am cheating because this is already assuming dealing with concrete groups, not with abstraction of higher structures
HENK
 
2:22 PM
Do our discussions also mean that physics is never meant to explain consciousness itself? Becuz to do that, u'd have to do that in terms of things that objectively exist in nature @Slereah @ACuriousMind @Amit
 
How do you measure consciousness
 
the hard problem of consciousness ('hard problem' is the technical term) is a can of worms that far exceeds the bounds of "physics"
 
Explain consciousness? We can't even define it!
 
@RyderRude Penrose has a theory of consciousness, Orch-OR
 
Yeah, this is why we can take consciousness for granted. It defines what existence means for us. It equips us with sets and collections to be able to do physics
@Amit that theory doesnr have a good reputation :P
 
2:24 PM
I have no consciousness and I can do physics
 
I think Penrose says something like "Since QM is non-computable, consciousness is non computable, so consciousness is quantum"
 
@RyderRude I don't like it either but I am sympathetic to the story behind it. I mean, that it came from among other things, the measurement problem in QM
Yeah but he is not that sloppy, he suggested a mechanism for it based on apparently some known neurological thing
 
@Slereah I have no consciousness and I must scream?
 
@Amit interesting. But at some point, Penrose must make the jump in explanation that is the "explanatory gap" from the hard problem of consciousness
 
Also, he doesn't claim it explains consciousness entirely, only what he calls "understanding" that he postulates machines can't do
 
2:27 PM
U cant go all the way to explaining consciousness
U hit a wall and then u jump
 
Well if you start humbly as he does maybe partially it is possible
 
Maybe. He is one of the most accomphished physicsts. And i dont object to the idea that its partially possible
 
He gives this interesting example of how we can "see" a certain pattern tiles the plane but it's not clear that a program will be able to do it without previously learning of a similar pattern
 
At some point, u jump. Thats it. All the rest can is explained in the brain mechanism, which maybe Penrose is right about
 
And that's where we come to infinity again lol
 
2:31 PM
My only objection to the idea of consciousness being non-explainable is that living things slowly became conscious throughout evolution
At what point do u introduce the magical factor
Bacteria isnt conscious. Its just atoms, i guess
But tbf anything that i can verify about a human being is also just atoms
 
I must refer to Feynman in this regard: "What I cannot create, I do not understand". Once we build a conscious being we can claim to understand it :)
 
This is even more complicated. Even if u create it, u cant prove that its conscious :P
 
If it quacks like a duck...
 
@ACuriousMind lol Ive see this before. Someone linked it on a doscussion about Penrose :)
 
2:35 PM
Penrose is certainly a smart guy, and an excellent physicist. And it's not as if he only started thinking about mind and consciousness after he had a reputation for physics. I first learned about him in connection with the Penrose Triangle.
The Penrose triangle, also known as the Penrose tribar, the impossible tribar, or the impossible triangle, is a triangular impossible object, an optical illusion consisting of an object which can be depicted in a perspective drawing, but cannot exist as a solid object. It was first created by the Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd in 1934. Independently from Reutersvärd, the triangle was devised and popularized in the 1950s by psychiatrist Lionel Penrose and his son, prominent Nobel Prize-winning mathematician Sir Roger Penrose, who described it as "impossibility in its purest form". It is featured...
 
Feynman was a positivist to that extent: if from all measurements it is conscious, it is
@RyderRude If you adopt positivism you'll clear a lot of these questions :)
My approach is slightly different, I take positivism only as a default system, a starting point. Go wild in all directions but in the end you always return to it
 
We need something in-between the idea of "objective existence" and "subjective experience". When a Solipsist dies, he is proved right from his own first person PoV becuz the universe ceases to exist. But the universe continues to exist for the rest of us @Amit
 
Maybe it's not different just requires a separate name
See for me that is just not a relevant question
 
I dont think objective existence is completey wrong. After all, most of us agree about the "events of the universe"
 
There is a motive behind every question is my first assumption. So if a question is put and I don't know what I get out of answering it, I stop there lol
Not that my motives are superior to anyone else's. There are just instances I really don't see why a certain question would be interesting to follow
 
2:44 PM
Thats perfectly valid. We should only indulge in questions that entertain us or make us money
 
lol, agreed
But also a corollary is that: if you are at times able to find the question behind the question, that is, what is the motive, you may be able to resolve the question by either clarifying the motive, or perhaps by seeing that the goal is unattainable
 
3:23 PM
@Amit I just read a brief Penrose's theory. He is saying that human beings know the truth of sentences that any computing system cant. He has a proof of this using Godel's incompleteness theorem.
So indeed, he is not being hand-vawy. At least he has a precise proof in mind that people can refute
But idk about his claims about the human brain. He is not specialised in neuroscience :P
 
3:38 PM
@RyderRude Yeah Idk about that. I am mainly glad he has a different take on the measurement problem
 
What is the usual take on the measurement problem? @Amit
Oh yeh. Many worlds
Copenhagen just avoids the problem by being sloppy. It is the most practical interpretation. But i wudnt count it as a "take" on measurement problem
 
Many worlds is one standard take. Another one is that it's not a real problem, because measurement is a classical process so there is no "sharp" change in the system.. something like that
Someone also said "the past is classical, the future is quantum" lol
 
Copenhagen is basically "shut up and calculate", until cant explain some experiment and u r forced to solve the measurement problem
 
And measurements are always past facts
 
@Amit yeah, i read that too ;P
Interestingly, Penrose himself has come up with this other take one meausurement problem where gravity causes collapse
 
3:46 PM
Feynman actually went deep into this and tried to quantify it, I know he has at least one paper dealing with this
Yeah, "mass displacement", not necessarily gravity I think
 
I discard these theories becuz probabilities shud behave linearly, exactly like the Schrodinger eqn says. No modifications
Non-linear stuff can imply Faster than light information transfer
Actually, some guy proved that the non-linear quantum theory can mean that p=np is true
 
I think what really happens is that we are not capable to keep track of the unitary evolution once the measurement takes place
 
But if u assume its unitary all the way, u get many worlds
This is y i like many worlds
 
I'm not sure it follows
That you get many worlds
 
It means, suppose in Wigner's friend, the friend gets entangled and is in a superposition of the outcomes of measuring the possible spins
Applying unitaru evolution to the whole system gives u that
Relational QM wud say that the outcome collapsed wrt the friend, but its perfectly unitary wrt to Wigner
 
3:54 PM
Isn't the problem that the measuring equipment is simply always too complex so we can't model it with a wave function? So maybe there is unitary evolution there, which does result in a well defined outcome, that doesn't require many worlds
 
@Amit there r mathematical results about this. Even simple linearity means that u cant have "one outcome chosen" due to unitary evolution
Basically, its impossible to derive Born rule from unitary evolution.
 
I'm not sure that's a contradiction, because what you call "outcome" may be translated into an uncertainty of something else, if you see what I mean, but the "leftover products" are the certain outcomes you measure. Am I just rephrasing the hidden variables theory? lol
 
I dont even know what u mean lol
 
If you shoot an electron at a screen, this screen is massive. How do we know that there is no unitary evolution inherited by degrees of freedom in the screen itself, so that our wave function never really collapsed, it goes on in another form.
 
Ok i got it... I guess. U mean the uncertainty gets transferred to thw environment
 
3:58 PM
exactly
 
And the electron's state becomes well defined
Pretty hand-wavy idea, dont u think? :P
I just mean that there is no indication of anything like this in the math
 
yes it is now a substate of the big system with a well defined value, something like:
$$|100110110101... \rangle + |1101011011.... \rangle + .... $$
and so on, but see how that leftmost bit is $1$? It's $1$ in all substates so there is a certainty in that part of the system (screen)
lol, still handwavy but I am trying to explain the idea
 
There is a formulation of classical mechanics called KvN, and there the collapse demonstrably doesnt follow from unitary evolution
We can say this becuz we understand well whats going on in classical mechanics
KvN uses a hilbert space, operator evolution and Born rule
 
Actually I thought that's one of the "standard" interpretations of the collapse, that the small thing gets entangled with the massive thing
 
Yeah, that is indeed the many worlds interpretation. It's pretty standard :P
 
4:02 PM
why does it imply many worlds I'm not sure I understand
 
Becuz entanglement and unitary evolution means that the bigger thing, like the measurement device or the human observer, actually ends up in a superposition of measuring both outcomes
So this is just wut entanglement wud imply
Many worlds has good support among physicists. It's def not niche anymore :P
 
oh no, that was my point, the leftmost bit that represents say "I measured a photon in position X" may be $1$ in all eigenstates (if that's the right term) that sum up to the "particle + equipment" wave function
 
No, the unitary evolution does not imply that. U need up with measuring all eigenvalues
I mean 1,0..every result of the outcome is there in the final apparatus+particle wavefunction
 
But how do you know, you compute the unitary evolution always with very simple operators, never with something like "big screen acts on tiny particle" operator, right? :)
 
It's becuz of linearity of unitary evolution
 
4:07 PM
I know it's a linear operator but I don't see why it's related
 
I will try to find links
19
Q: I'm not seeing any measurement/wave function collapse issue in quantum mechanics

Egg ManThe information about a particle is contained in a vector of unit-norm called the wave function. One postulates says that this wave function is supposed to evolve with time as the particle interacts with other particles (by being in the potential field generated by other particles). A measurement...

 
"You have (very, very broadly) two solutions. Either you decide that there are special physical systems called "measuring apparata" that obey different rules of evolution than the rest of quantum systems. Or you say "everything can go in a superposition." Both options are weird, and hence "the problem" and the endless debate on interpretations."
The second opinion is basically what I was trying to say, and I don't think it is weird :)
 
Also see the answer of benrg
@Amit the second option means that all outcomes r measured. That answer is talking about many worlds!
 
Okay so I add: I think you can talk about superposition without postulating many worlds
 
The first option is about Copenhagen. The second is about many worlds
@Amit in its original form, many worlds just means superposition. The actual creation of worlds is sci fi stuff
I read Many worlds is basically relational QM in Everett's original idea
 
4:14 PM
I thought that many worlds applies to the part where you measure, not to the part where things are in superposition pre-measurement
Actually I think what I quoted is a bit vague anyway
 
It means that Wigner has to describe his friend as a superposition of both the worlds where each outcome gets measured
But idk about worlds physically existing
Many worlds just means many worlds r in the math. Means even consciousness is allowed to be in superposition
Like, u describe a whole person as a superposition of measuring both outcomes
If u do quantum mechanics accurately
In practice, u can use collapse becuz of decoherence. U dont need to carry out unitary evolution of a whole person or a cat in a box
 
bolbteppa wrote a really good answer, which is too long for me to read now, but he makes a lot of points I sympathize with
 
Yeah, his answer seems to b a different interpretation. Something close to Copenhagen
 
@RyderRude [citation needed]
 
Lol. It was an online poll
 
4:20 PM
in my experience, the most common interpretation among physicists is "shut up". Not as in "shut up and calculate" but as in "shut up, I don't want to talk about interpretations again, I want to do physics"
 
Oh yeah
I mean among physicists who care about the measurement problem, many worlds is popular
e.
 
after that, you get "Copenhagen", not as a consistent interpretation chosen for its merits but as a similar "shut up, I'm just picking what everyone else is picking"
 
Yeah, I'm not sure if Copenhagen adds anything beyond "Shut up"
 
after that, I have no idea what is most popular, but I think many worlds has much more pop-sci support than among actual physicists
 
Carroll has expressed support
 
4:23 PM
oh, you can find some famous name for most interpretations :P
that's not evidence for "many worlds is popular"
 
Lol. Idk i find it soo natural. What else wud u chose if u cared about the measurement problem? @ACuriousMind
Lol. Idk i find it soo natural. What else wud u choose if u cared about the measurement problem? @ACuriousMind
 
lol, that's probably true for a lot of foundational issues @ACuriousMind , but don't you think that the statement "I want to do physics" is a bit unfair here? Considering that I think at least, this foundational issue is something we can actually do physics about, that is, try to find out about from experiments. Like the ones that push the limit of how big an object can be in the two slits experiment etc.
 
Many worlds is just entanglement. Doesnt distinguish between quantum and classical
 
@RyderRude I don't care, shut up and calculate!
 
Let's say u cared!!
 
4:25 PM
the measurement problem isn't a problem
 
It'a not a problem in practice, for now
 
there's nothing to be "solved", none of these "solutions" change a single prediction
 
Or do u mean its not a problem even in principle?
@ACuriousMind i can give an example for when many worlds predicts the correct thing and copenhagen doesnt
 
understanding decoherence is important in quantum computers I understand
 
I don't care because I'm apathetic but because I genuinely don't think there's a "problem" here. The problem is just inside people's heads, refusing to accept that our classical "intuition" just doesn't work in quantum mechanics
@Amit decoherence itself is not an interpretation or a solution to the measurement problem
it is an important process
but I don't have to believe that the measurement problem is a problem in order to admit that
 
4:27 PM
Yes, all I'm saying, investigating the "measurement problem" or the "collapse of the wave function", etc. may lead to better understanding of decoherence as well
 
I don't know what that means
 
Suppose in wigner's friend experiment, a future civilisation cud calculate the unitary evolution of the entire friend until the end, and make predictions sensitive to the final result. In this case, many worlds cud produce the correct answer while Copenhagen wud just say that the friend collapsed the wavefunction @ACuriousMind
 
@Amit Measurement is just an interaction with a classical object, without classical objects we have no theory, accept the contradiction, 'alternatives' to this are a joke, it's that simple
 
This is y i say that its a problem, in principle. Becuz it makes predictions in principle
 
@RyderRude I don't know what that means either
even in many worlds, you can only access information inside your branch of the universal wavefunction
 
4:29 PM
I mean only many worlds says that even large systems like human beings need to be evolved unitarily
 
I don't know what you think many worlds allows you to predict here that no other theory does
 
Has anyone actually sat down and tried to read the Everett paper
 
@RyderRude wrong on many levels
 
Copenhagen wud assume that the friend collapses the wavefunction
 
I read it a bit, I remember a cool cinema picture
But I don't remember a single word / equation :)
 
4:29 PM
@ACuriousMind does copenhagen not say that the friend collapses the wavefunction prior to wigner's measurement?
 
stop playing your favourite intepretation against "Copenhagen", that's an ill-defined historical mess and not an interpretation :P
 
So do u agree that all interpretations wud say that the friend needs to b evolved unitarily, in principle? @ACuriousMind
If thats true, then there r no measurable differences in interpretations
 
I...wouldn't say that that is a meaningful question to ask about interpretations, in general
 
@ACuriousMind Well as far as I understand, in quantum computers we don't really have a detailed knowledge of why decoherence occurs when it does. This implies that investigating the phenomenon of collapse can lead to new insights to help us delay decoherence
 
but in general, interpretations are very careful to not construct explanations that would differ from the outcome of the default formalism of states in Hilbert space and unitary evolution
 
4:32 PM
But if u agree that everything in an isolated system needs to be evolbed unitarily, u already agree with Everett's original idea of many worlds @ACuriousMind
But u just call it "usual quantum mechanics"!
 
@RyderRude that is not true
 
Everett didnt say the worlds existed physically. His idea was only about entanglement and not drawing a boundary between quantum and classical @ACuriousMind
 
at the very least $\psi$-epistemic or relational interpretations can use unitary evolution for everything and not claim that there is a single universal wavefunction
 
@ACuriousMind Then I agree with those interpretations too :P
I dont solely support many worlds
 
and in any case you still haven't explain what prediction you think many worlds can make others can't
 
4:35 PM
Then i was just mistaken:). We have no disagreement here
U just call it "usual QM"
I agree many worlds is not the only interpretation with this idea
Relational QM is one too
I'm a fan of all of them
As long as u can have humans in superposition, I'm a fan :)
 
if your point is that you can predict "more details" when you model the friend/apparatus as a quantum system compared to modelling it as a "collapsing" classical measurement then you're right but in practice that's completely irrelevant: In cases where this difference matters, i.e. you can observe details of the time evolution of the measurement device/friend/whatever, no one models this as collapsing classical measurements anyway
 
@RyderRude Doesn't surprise me to see an infinity denier a fan of these 'alternative' interpretations :p
 
@ACuriousMind yeah, decoherence achieves the same result
 
@RyderRude no, everything achieves the same result!
 
@bolbteppa it's usual QM! Acuriousmind agrees with me
 
4:38 PM
no, I don't
 
These alternatives are not usual QM
 
I think you fundamentally misunderstand both the measurement problem and many worlds
 
infinity denier, where is my laughing emoji
 
@ACuriousMind well if everyone agrees that everything goes in unitary evolution, then i agree theres no measurement problem
 
@RyderRude that's not what I'm saying
 
4:39 PM
Normal QM assumes everything is unitary evolution, that is irrelevant
 
I'm saying that "unitary evolution" isn't the point
 
Lemme read again:)
I didnt get u @ACuriousMind can u explain again? Do u disagree that everything needs to evolve unitarily until measurement
 
Let's take a step back: What do you think the "measurement problem" is?
 
Even a measurement is a unitary process in normal QM, nobody is breaking unitarity anywhere
Except maybe in some misunderstanding/'alternative'
 
Its about unitary evolution vs collapse. @ACuriousMind
 
4:42 PM
no it isn't
 
@bolbteppa That was kind of what I was trying to say in perhaps a somewhat lame way above
 
Explain ur view
 
The measurement problem is the following question: We know that quantum systems can evolve into superpositions of states. Why is it then that we can never observe a superposition, i.e. every measurement of an observable we carry out yields a definitive value, and why does this value appear to be intrinsically probabilistic?
 
But this is no problem because the postulates of QM say that u measure only a single eigenvalue and its probbailistic
 
aha, so now you agree with me there is no problem!
 
4:45 PM
I would add a third question: what is the physical process that induces this "collapse", do you agree @ACuriousMind ?
 
Yeah!!
I think we've never had any disagreemenr
 
disagreeing is good according to some liberal authorities, lol
 
I only disagree with interpretations which dont do unitary evolution until Measuremenr
 
@Amit I would think that if you think there is a physical process underlying this then that's just part of the answer
@RyderRude no such interpretations exist, to my knowledge
 
Anytime someone talks about a collapse, you know they do not understand that a measurement is done via an interaction and are trying to ignore the unavoidable effect of the measuring device on the system, which is the entire point of QM in a sense, at best the 'collapse' is summarizing what happened in an interaction but framed as magic
 
4:47 PM
unless you count something like Bohmian mechanics, for which "it doesn't do unitary evolution" both greatly undersells and misunderstands how much unlike the standard formalism it wants to do QM
 
@ACuriousMind It's part of the answer if we assume this process is explained already by QM. Some people (a minority of physicists I think) suggest new physics is required to explain this process
 
The problem/confusion arises because the classical measuring device bounces between different stationary states before and after the interaction, a jumpy behavior, but that's because an interaction took place
 
@ACuriousMind some people wud say Copenhagen says that by drawing a boundary between quantum and classical. And objective collpase theories definitely say that
But ofc people mean different things by Copenhagen
But objective collapse def says this stuff
 
@RyderRude ...objective collapse theories definitely think measurement isn't unitary, but of course they think there is unitary evolution until the measurement happens
I'm not sure what you're saying
 
The total measuring device + system could be modeled deterministically by some grand Hamiltonian, however to even know this would require measuring the 'measuring device + system', which sends you in an infinite loop
 
4:49 PM
@bolbteppa That's the best way I think this can be explained as well, and it doesn't require any new physics. I also think, this can also be demonstrated by experiments (perhaps someone already has)
 
I mean, say, gravitational collaspe theories. They modify Schrodinger eqn @ACuriousMind
 
I don't know what that is
and sure, if you modify Schrödinger's equation, then you're no longer an interpretation
you're just different physics
 
@bolbteppa Do u also agree that Wigner's frnd is, in principle, in a superposition of both outcomes, from Wigner's PoV
 
@Amit Right, if some alternative could even come up with a coherent story it would be interesting, I literally cannot find one though
 
@bolbteppa Yeah but maybe at least some day, we'll be able to at least do a few steps in that loop: measure X, then measure X + measuring Apparatus , etc. in a way that will confirm that it's really "QM all the way down"
 
4:50 PM
@ACuriousMind i agree
 
Am I alone in thinking that a quantum chemistry feels a bit contrived?
 
I can't remember off the top of my head how to deal with that
 
As long as we say that everything goes into superposition until measurement, and the collapse isnt objective, I have no disagreement. By "collpase isnt objective", I mean that the friend goes in a superposition frm Wigner's perspective
 
why does it matter? what changes if he doesn't?
 
@ACuriousMind then it wont b unitary evolution from wigner's perspective prior to measurement. It would violate a postulate of QM
 
4:54 PM
I don't know what that means or why it matters
 
And it wud make different predictions, in principle
 
what different predictions?
 
@ACuriousMind I mean if Wigner is working in standard QM, he must apply the Schrodinger eqn until measurement. This means that the frnd must go in superposition. U cant say "what if he doesnt"
 
you keep claiming that somehow a lack of unitary time evolution means different predictions but you never actually spell out what you mean
 
I don't know about the Wigner friend paradox, but I do know Wigner was supportive of "consciousness causes collapse"
The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement. == Background: observation in quantum mechanics == In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics predicts only the probabilities for different observed experimental outcomes. What constitutes an observer or an observation is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system under measurement and observation is complete...
 
4:56 PM
@ACuriousMind It means the state before measurement is different from what we wud have gotten from Schrodinger eqn
 
@RyderRude so what? the state before measurement is by definition unobservable!
 
It makes different predictions, in principle
 
if we could observe it we would already be making a measurement
having a different idea in your theory about what state something is in when it is by definition unobserved is not a difference in predictions
 
I mean its not even related to the schrodinger evolved wavwfunction by a phase factor
 
predictions are for observations
 
4:57 PM
lol, the Wigner friend paradox is that he can't have friends 'cause he keeps arguing about interpretations... kidding!!! ^_^
 
So the predictions r different, even after measurement
Its not just the difference in the wavefunction, which is unobservble
Do u not agree that the predictions r different, in principle?
 
So what is the different prediction?
 
ahh cool, I love Lenny
 
Like, if an advanced civilisation cud measure the state of one atom in the room after measurement, with precision
That prediction wud b different
But in practice, it doesnt matter becuz of decoherence
 
5:00 PM
@RyderRude you have not established that
 
The wavefunctions r not related by a phase factor!
This establishes that
 
you just keep claiming that advanced civilisations could somehow determine when collapse occurs but the whole point of this "problem" is that you can't
@RyderRude what wavefunctions?
I have no idea what you're talking about
 
Uggh
I will leave this here then :)
 
That's why people write papers I guess, so they have something concrete to argue about ^_^
 
At least we agree that Schrodinger eqn is to be applied, in principle, until measurement
Which is the qm postulate everyone agrees on
@ACuriousMind Ok I got one more attempt. We dont collapse anything this time. We try to reverse the time evolution. If it was truly unitary, it wud b reversible and this wud b the different prediction
We have reversed the final states of relatively large systems in lab
 
5:12 PM
@RyderRude but we have no access to the "final state" in the contexts where measurements happen
when I measure the spin of something to be "spin-up", I have no idea whether there was a probability to have measured "spin-down" for that specific measurement or not - in many-worlds speak, the other branches of the wavefunction are unobservable
you can't get the information necessary to run unitary time evolution backwards for a specific measurement
 
I mean... We start this experiment with an eigenstate of some operator. We must reverse back to it. If it's an eigenstate, it wud give the same result after repeating multiple times @ACuriousMind
We cud gain confidence slowly that its reversible
After repeating this experimenr, i mean
 
Let's be concrete: I've got the measurement result "spin-up". What do you want to "reverse" here?
 
We evolve this forwards and backwards, then we measure again
If its unitary all the way, it wud come back to this eigenstatw
Non-unitary wud b irreversible
 
how do "we evolve" this?
 
Using external field
 
5:19 PM
I don't know what that means. I just got a particle in some state handed to me and I measured its spin.
 
I swear ive read that this is how they check unitarity is maintained on relatively macroscopic scales
They do this to rule out non linearity and decoherence "explanations" of collapse
I obviously dont know how exactly they do it tho
 
sure, if I take my spin-up result, leave it alone to evolve in some known context for a while, then measure the spin again and compare the results to my predictions via the unitary evolution associated with that context, then I'm testing my understanding of how unitary time evolution works
I don't know what this has to do with the measurement problem
 
I just dont see what our disagreement is even about if we agree evolution is unitary all the way
Ok u agree the frnd's evolution is unitary. But u doubt that the frnd is in a superposition? U asked me "what if he isnt in a superposition? "
But that question is irrelevant if u agree evolution is unitary
Is it that "frnd being in a superposition" a vague term? Then I agree, I guess
 
Maybe we need to establish what Wigner's friend is actually about: We start with a system in a state $\lvert 0\rangle + \lvert 1\rangle$. The friend is inside a room (much like the box of Schrödinger's cat) and performs a measurement of this state, resulting in "0" or "1". Wigner, in turn, outside the room, would model the state of his friend and the system after the measurement but before Wigner's talks to him
as $\lvert 0\rangle \otimes \lvert 0\rangle_F+ \lvert 1\rangle \otimes \lvert 1\rangle_F$, where $\lvert i\rangle_F$ is "the friend has observed $i$".
 
Yeah
 
5:27 PM
the point of the thought experiment is that if we concede that Wigner's model before talking to his friend is valid, then after talking to him Wigner's model is either $\lvert 0\rangle \otimes \lvert 0\rangle_F$ or the version with "1". In Wigner's model the original state has only "collapsed" after talking to his friend, but in his friends model the original state has "collapsed" when they did the measurement
 
Yeah. This is how i think about it too
So we can say that the frnd was in a superposition in Wigner's description
 
so what do you mean when you ask me whether I think that the friend is in a superposition?
the friend is in a superposition in Wigner's model, but not in their own model
 
Exactly!!
Then we agree on all things :)
 
so far nothing about this has anything to do with interpretations or the measurement problem - that only comes in when we ask which, if any, of the models is "really true"
 
Yeah, this is usual QM then. Many interpretations can agree with this, so we cant choose one
I agree. Even better that I can call this "usual QM" instead of "Many worlds" Lol
You r right. Many worlds talks about the wavefunction of the universe
That cant b scientifically falsified
 
5:38 PM
What is the number that only sometimes appears below the name of the person in the chat?
 
@Amit total SE reputation, it appears when there's enough place to display it without cutting into the next user
 
Ahh cool, thanks, I didn't know it ever gets summed up :)
 
6:24 PM
Anyone have time to help with a basic problem: Find the minimum distance from the point (2,1,4) to the surface $x+y+z=4$ hint: to simplify computations minimize the square of the distance. I was thinking $d^2 = \sqrt{(x-x_0)^2 + (y-y_0)^2 + (z-z_0)^2}^2$ putting it into that form but where is the 4 supposed to go
is it supposed to be $2^2 = \sqrt{(x-2)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-4)^2}^2$ ?
or do i treat this as a lagrange multipliers problem with $\nabla f(x,y,z) = \sqrt{(x-x_0)^2 + (y-y_0)^2 + (z-z_0)^2} = \lambda \nabla g(x,y,z)$ where $g$ is $x+y+z=4$ ?
 
@Obliv you can take the dot product between any vector pointing from the plane to the point, with the unit plane normal
 
I think if not lagrange multipliers, I can do 2nd partials test with the discriminant no?
@Amit I am terrible at visualizing R^3 so I honestly don't even know how i'd get a normal vector
unless... $x+y+z-4=0$ the unit normal would be $<1,1,1>$?
 
@Obliv well for $$ax+by+cz+d=0$$ in general the (non unit) normal is $(a,b,c)$ :) But it's worth understanding why that's true geometrically too
 
iirc, $a(x-x_0)+b(y-y_0)+c(z-z_0)=0$
right, so I take the unit normal to be $<1,1,1>$ then ?
 
correct, but you need to normalize it if you want to follow the rest of my suggestion
divide by $\sqrt{3}$
 
6:31 PM
$<\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}>$
 
yep that's your unit normal there
 
then i project the vector from the point to the plane onto the unit normal
 
correct
and take the absolute value of the result :) distance is positive, but the normal may be oriented opposite to the vector :)
 
and minimize that so $\vec{v} = <2,1,0>$ (used 0,0,4 as the point) then $\vec{v}\cdot <\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}>$
mm that looks wrong lol
 
i don't know what you mean by minimize. $$|\vec{v} \cdot \hat{n}|$$ is correct
the minimum distance from a point to a plane is always the projection along the normal (can be seen geometrically but also from properties of the dot product)
 
6:37 PM
oh that was correct
yep
it becomes $\sqrt{3}$ which is what is in the book
ty!
 
Welcome
 
Any chance you can help me with this one as well? Find three positive integers, x, y, and z, such that the product is 64 and the sum is a minimum. i.e $xyz=64$ and $x+y+z = min.$
i see a constraint and my mind goes to lagrange multipliers but I'm not sure if there is a simpler method (and what is the constraint function actually..)
let's do $f(x,y,z) = x+y+z$ then $g(x,y,z) = xyz = 64$
and we minimize $f$
 
the product already makes this a 2 variable problem
it just eliminates one of the 3
 
and we have $\nabla f = 0$ , find critical points and test that their products=64 maybe?
and are a minimum
 
$z = 64/xy$
$$f(x,y) = x+y+64/xy$$
 
6:47 PM
so $f(x,y) = x+y+\frac{64}{xy}$ hmm
oh
then just minimize $f$
 
yea
 
$F_x = 0, F_y = 0$ and look for a minimum
 
yeah I think Lagrange multipliers is also a possible approach, but I don't remember how to use that lol
3
Q: Maximization in Two Variables

Franklin Pezzuti DyerI have not yet had the privilege of studying multivariable calculus, but I have made an educated guess about how to find the minimum or maximum of a function with two variables, for example, $x$ and $y$. Since, in three dimensions, a minimum or maximum would be represented by a tangent plane wit...

No need to be guessin' when you got the Hessian
 
lol
 
:)
 
6:59 PM
the answer is $x=y=z=4$ right
that's what i got but it's an even number problem in the textbook :[
 
yeah it's correct
 
@ACuriousMind Oh wait. So spin rotations and angular momentum rotations have the same observable effect, but they act differently on wave functions? Is this the distinction?
 
rigorously checked via Geogebra :)
 

« first day (4526 days earlier)      last day (403 days later) »