marsrules wrote:
> Lusion <sendspamto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:<IHKfc.10527$zj3.1240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> In QM, particles are given things called "amplitudes", which are
complex
>> numbers that correspond somewhat to probability (a probability can be
>> derived from an amplitude). There is a rule for particles that are
>> observed, and there are rules for particles that are not observed.
>>
>> You might imagine that the particles wander off into another universe
for
>> a
>> while. That's fine to imagine, but it's not necessary--i.e., it
doesn't
>> describe in itself the particular thing that has to happen. What has
to
>> happen is that in OUR universe, they must actually NOT have a
particular
>> state or the other, but instead their states are superpositioned.
>
> The only way to observe other universes and do quantum calculations is
> by entanglement. In our universe we see one particle become two
> distinct particles, this is classically impossible but you tend to
> want to make this sound like normal everyday reality which it is not.
You're not explicitely saying this, but you seem to mean that entanglement
is required for one particle to become two distinct particles. If this is
what you mean, this is false. There is a particle split in the two slit
experiments (in a QM interpretation of test F, the particles, which are
going through one at a time, are affected by both slits being open--each
particle is actually going through both slits!)
Entanglement in the minimal case involves two particles. Speaking
loosely,
particle A has superimposed states like A1 and A2. State A1 causes
Particle B to have state B1, and state A2 causes particle B to have state
B2. The key to entanglement is that A1 is related to B1, and A2 is
related
to B2.
Finally, QM doesn't work only in "specially contrived cases"... it is at
work all of the time. You're technically correct when you say that QM is
"classically impossible", but you seem to be suggesting that "normal,
everyday reality" has nothing to do with QM. If this is the case, you're
just plain wrong, as I'll demonstrate with normal everyday observations
that depend on QM. So I'll "digress" for a short spell and tell you a few
observations from my life.
I just had a chocolate milkshake. I drank the chocolate milkshake out of
a
red plastic cup. As I look outside my window, it's a nice sunny day...
when I look closer at my window, I can see a faint reflection of my face.
Explanation: We consume food for energy, which we extract through
digestion. Digestion is to a large degree a chemical process. Chemistry,
though considered classical, is much more fully explained in terms of
quantum mechanics. The red plastic cup is red because of the spectral
distribution of light reflecting off of it (ignoring deeper complications
of psychology, biology, and philosophy of color for the moment--and NO, I
won't explain that in this newsgroup). The spectral distribution of
reflected light from a given substance is determined by quantum mechanics.
And finally, light is transmitted through glass via a quantum mechanical
process. Grant it, this also can be explained somewhat classically, but
I've added another ordinary everyday observation that drastically
complicatest things--partial reflections on glass. No satisfactory
classical theory of light can explain fully why there should be partial
reflections on glass (given all of the other simple things you can do to
glass--e.g., poli****ng it and making it opaque or transparent depending on
your grane size).
Now, I'm not sure EXACTLY what you were implying by your above paragraph,
so
I'm not quite sure if any of my responses help explain something and/or
counter something. But there they are for consideration.
>> Suppose that for test F, in Universe X, the particle travels through
the
>> slit on the left, and in Universe Y it travels through the slit on the
>> right. We are in our own universe, which we'll call Universe Z, with
the
>> photomultiplier. Is Universe Z the same as Universe X, or Universe Y?
>> It can't be entirely Universe X or Universe Y (same reasoning as
above).
>> Instead, it should be some sort of superposition of Universe X and
>> Universe
>> Y. Furthermore, to fit QM theory, Universe Z's member****p should be
>> described not just probabilistically (probabilities are _reduced_
>> amplitudes), but in terms of amplitudes themselves. Furthermore, these
>> amplitudes would have to have special taylor-made properties belonging
to
>> how photons happen to appear in similar situations.
>>
>> So with a "parallel universe" theory, you'll have to have some really
>> weird rules for just how "parallel" versus "converging" versus
"actually
>> is our universe" these universes are, and furthermore, these rules
would
>> have to be tailor made to match the precise dual nature properties that
>> are
>> typically assigned to the particles themselves. So not only does QM
not
>> prove parallel universes, but they actually complicate the situation.
>> But that's not the end of it yet...
>>
>
> We are learning how complex actual reality is. It would be nice if it
> were all so simple we could easily understand it, the complexity is
> boggling. OK, so you say there is only one universe. If the force of
> gravity were a little greater or a little smaller then nothing would
> exist. If you look at the peculiar numbers for the weak atomic force,
> etc. what you notice is that our universe seems to be one of a set and
> not unique. This would be hard to explain this easily. However if
> there was only one universe then the numbers of forces would be quite
> specific simple and not as odd as they really are. I can't get into
> trying to explain this here. The solution to the complexity of this
> universe is that there are many universes. At the big bang all
> possibilities were created so in other words life could not fail
> because in at least one universe the numbers come out right for life
> to exist.
I'm sorry, but I believe here you've missed my point. Consider the claim
"the earth is flat". Most people who seriously believe this are simply
ignorant of something, or haven't thought through all of what they know.
But I can make the claim in another way, very easily, and resolve it
perfectly with ALL current knowledge of the universe. It's easy, really.
I just make a mapping between the spherical earth and a plain. The
mapping
of course must be warped, but it can certainly be done. I can make my
mapping in such a way that it maps more than just the earth's surface--it
has corresponding mapping points for all of space as well.
Now, given my mapping, I may be asked to explain physical laws. Things
which are nice and symmetric in "sphere earth theory" have to become very
odd in "flat earth theory", but I can model the laws just the same. All
that's required, is that the laws themselves go through the mapping. So
now in order to know how fast an object will fall towards Pluto, I would
have to know exactly what time of day it is, where Pluto's orbit is, and
what angle in relation to some center point critical to my mapping the
object is being dropped at. Then I can feed all of this into my
equations,
and give you a complete answer.
This particular "flat earth" theory actually fits all observations. So
what's wrong with it? Technically, nothing is wrong with it--it is
literally equivalent with all known physics, by design even. It's just
suspicious.
This is a pretty good analogy for the multiple universe theory used to
explain QM that relies on "the universe splits in two--in one universe,
the
photon enters the slit on the left, ...". Using the exact meaning of
"suspicious" as outlined in my flat earth theory above, I call such
multiple universe theories suspicious. Why? Because they have to be
highly contrived to fit a much simpler explanation. The contriving
element
in the flat earth theory is the mapping between "sphere earth theory"
physics and "flat earth theory" physics. The contriving element in this
particular multiple universe theory is the mapping between "how exactly
the
universe where the photon went through the slit on the left is different
from our universe", which depends on an analogously complex mapping
between
universe co-interactions, known experimentation, standard QM theory, and
that particular photon's being a photon and having its particular
frequency.
>> Finally, onto quantum computing. Quantum computers work based on
>> amplitudes. The superpositioned states, which are fundamental (and as
>> such, are really the particle's states), are simply contrived to
>> represent
>> all of the states in our problem. Then, the entire problem space
(being
>> a superposiiton of these states) is sent through a mechanism designed
to
>> fetch the result that we want, selecting it through a method mimicing
our
>> problem specification.
(your reply snipped at this point, simply because I have no response I
wish
to give for it).
>> It's probably best to ignore the multiple universes where each one
>> contains a particular problem space element, since such universes can't
>> exist anyway even if multiple universes do somehow implement QM (see
>> above paragraph
>> "It's worse than this..."). Instead, just think of quantum computers
as
>> super-massively parallel computers, exploiting a fundamental property
of
>> the universe for its parallelism.
> Parallel with what!!!!!!!! The only thing it could be parallel with
> is a similar universe!!
This seems to be a semantic confusion. The word "parallel" in "parallel
computing" means something distinctly different from the word "parallel"
in
"parallel universe". The former means that multiple computations are
being
performed at once. The latter is more of a geometric claim about the
universes. My claim that quantum computers have parallelism is in the
former sense... multiple things are being done at once.
My general claim is that multiple universes are possible, but it's
unlikely
that QM relies on multiple universes in a very particular sense. That
very
particular sense is "the photon goes through the slit on the left in
Universe X". The reasoning behind my general claim is:
If the photon goes through the slit on the left in Universe X, and QM is
relying on it, then it's reasonable to say that the universe splits into
each possibility. If that is the case, each universe more or less obeys
the same exact laws. And, if that is the case, then the universe in which
the photon went through the slit on the left, happens to be performing an
experiment in which both slits are open and the photomultiplier is in a
trough. In such experiments, the outcome is that the photomultiplier
never
detects the photon. But if the photon really does go through just the
slit
on the left, it shouldn't care whether the slit on the right is covered or
uncovered, meaning that its chance of hitting the photomultiplier is
fairly
large, meaning in terms that its chance of hitting the photomultiplier is
NOT zero. This is a contradiction.
This line of reasoning has the following specific implication, assuming
that
there are no "flat earth-style contrived" phenomenon going on:
In test F, there are no universes in which the photon goes through just
the
slit on the left.
And this has the following implication for quantum computing:
In quantum computing, there are no universes where just one element in the
problem state is represented.
--
Lusion
|
