ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th July 2019, 01:08 AM   #41
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,587
Many Worlds and probabilities

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
That's not my understanding of the explanation or MWI. I struggle to get my head around it though and it seems unfeasible to my layman's mind.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You must have misunderstood something there, that (your first paragraph) is not the MWI.
I think I need to backup my claim that Carroll has been saying something along the lines that I said. I do not have access to Carroll's Arrow of Time at the moment, so I have searched his blog entries. Take a look at this entry from 2015:The Wrong Objections to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
The MWI does not postulate a huge number of unobservable worlds, misleading name notwithstanding. (One reason many of us like to call it “Everettian Quantum Mechanics” instead of “Many-Worlds.”)
He expands on this in the next paragraphs:
Quote:
Now, MWI certainly does predict the existence of a huge number of unobservable worlds. But it doesn’t postulate them. It derives them, from what it does postulate. And the actual postulates of the theory are quite simple indeed:
  • The world is described by a quantum state, which is an element of a kind of vector space known as Hilbert space.
  • The quantum state evolves through time in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, with some particular Hamiltonian.
Is this the same as what this thread is about?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 01:26 AM   #42
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,663
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I think I need to backup my claim that Carroll has been saying something along the lines that I said. I do not have access to Carroll's Arrow of Time at the moment, so I have searched his blog entries. Take a look at this entry from 2015:The Wrong Objections to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics



He expands on this in the next paragraphs:


Is this the same as what this thread is about?
You are misunderstanding. The point he is making is that the many "worlds" of QM are not an additional postulate. There's already there in the Schrodinger Equation. Everett simply said "we don't need some additional collapse postulate that throws away the other worlds".

When two quantum systems interact, they go into a superposition of states. You start with an electron in a superposition of states with spin up and spin down. It interacts with another electron. They become entangled, say, in a superposition of states where A is spin up and B is down plus A is down and B is up. That such superpositions exist is basic QM, it's as true under the Copenhagen interpretation as it is in Everett, and yet that plus is exactly what is meant by a "world". The only difference is that you can see the extent to which those different states interact, and when the system is very large, due to decoherence, the interaction becomes negligible.

Everett just said, you don't have to delete one set of those states, and in fact we have no justification for doing so.

In your quote, Carroll is saying that Everett didn't say we should add in a postulate that there are all these other worlds. The worlds are already a prediction of the Schrodinger Equation. Everett is just saying that we don't need a second postulate that gets rid of the ones we don't measure.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 02:11 AM   #43
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,144
Is there a good layman's introduction to MWI?

I can't get my head around how many many many multiple universes can simply pop into existence every second of every day so I am either misunderstanding something badly or missing something that makes it makes sense.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 02:42 AM   #44
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
I get that you can call anything a "world." I can call every state described by the vector of the 2 values of the dice I'm rolling a "world". There's nothing from stopping me from doing so.

But I still think it's basically BS to start taking it seriously as actual worlds. Which some do seem to.

Not the least because it doesn't solve anything. You can't say that it's world "A up, B down" and world "A down, B up" when they got entangled, because that would reduce it to a hidden variable. Which entanglement conspicuously is not. Now instead of wrapping your head around two electrons existing in a superposition of states, you have essentially two whole universes existing in a superposition of states until one electron or the other are measured. And instead of just collapsing the state of two electrons when one is measured, you have whole universes deciding which is which when an electron is measured.

Essentially it creates the 'quantum at a macroscopic scale' nonsense at a bigger scale than anyone else ever did.

Edit: And to return to the fact that you didn't really gain anything, you still have one state disappearing from the universe you're in when the electron is measured. Both states still existed before in yours, just because the whole universes were entangled up to that point. Only one exists afterwards, because that's what measuring it does. Essentially all you've done is amplify the entangled states to the state of the whole universe, instead of just dealing with the two electrons. But at the end of the day, you still have two superposed states until the measurement, and one of them disappears from your universe afterwards. Saying that it was just decided in which universe you are, doesn't really change much.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 02:58 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 02:57 AM   #45
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Not the least because it doesn't solve anything. You can't say that it's world "A up, B down" and world "A down, B up" when they got entangled, because that would reduce it to a hidden variable. Which entanglement conspicuously is not. Now instead of wrapping your head around two electrons existing in a superposition of states, you have essentially two whole universes existing in a superposition of states until one electron or the other are measured. And instead of just collapsing the state of two electrons when one is measured, you have whole universes deciding which is which when an electron is measured.

No.

The words are not entangled after the split and cannot influence each other as a 'hidden variable'.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 03:05 AM   #46
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
No.

The words are not entangled after the split and cannot influence each other as a 'hidden variable'.
No, I'm saying it becomes a hidden variable if it's already decided that in this world it's "A up, B down" and in the other world it's "A down, B up". That is, if you actually take the worlds to be actual universes, as opposed to cutesy names given to a vector.

Because that means that a given universe, it's already decided that A is up and B is down, or viceversa. If there is no superposition between those universes, then it is a hidden variable scenario, not entanglement. In actual entanglement, that is not decided until you actually measure it.

The only way to actually make it work as entanglement, is to say that you exist in both universes until one of the electrons is measured, and only then they properly split. That IS creating an entangled whole universes scenario.

Again, it all makes sense if you just treat "world" strictly as a name for a particular combination of 2 values in a vector. It stops making sense when one actually starts believing that actual multiple universes exist there. Which, frankly, I've seen even big names doing.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 06:36 AM   #47
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,663
Hans, I'm not "saying it's a world". I'm saying that when people talk about many worlds, they are just talking about those different parts of the wavefunction. There's still just the wavefunction.

When it's just two electrons that are entangled, and they aren't entangled with other parts the universe, the rest of the universe hasn't actually branched. It's just those two electrons that are in a superposition of states. But when they start interacting with other particles, they become entangled with them too. There's no point at which interaction stops leading to entanglement. It's just that the entanglement gets messy with a large system. That's decoherence. Collapse postulates that for some unknown reason at some point when enough parts get involved you no longer have a superposition of states but instead you collapse onto a single state. There's no justification for that.

Many worlds just says that when systems interact they become entangled. If you start with a superposition of states you end up with a larger system that's also in superposition.

I'm not sure where you think hidden variables enter into this picture.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 06:53 AM   #48
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Regarding the reality of the other 'worlds' David Deutsch has suggested that as soon as a quantum computer is able to complete a sufficiently complex task then the reality of the other worlds will be beyond question.

There will be a calculation that could not possibly have been done using the information available in this universe in that time frame, and yet unquestionably the calculation will have been done.

So the question will naturally arise "Where was the calculation done?".

The only possible answer will be "In those other worlds".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 07:13 AM   #49
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Is there a good layman's introduction to MWI?
I have been looking around and I have never found one.

Quote:
I can't get my head around how many many many multiple universes can simply pop into existence every second of every day so I am either misunderstanding something badly or missing something that makes it makes sense.
I am not clear about whether the idea is that a split actually occurs, or whether the other 'worlds' were all there all along and we just find out something about the part of the wave we inhabit.

Also, there appear to be some different interpretations of the many-worlds interpretation, such as the 'emergent universe' interpretation.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 07:48 AM   #50
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,144
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I have been looking around and I have never found one.
Carroll's videos are pretty good and I can generally follow them but I still don't quite get what it is that we are really talking about here. And I end up having some basic questions that don't really get addressed in the talks.

Quote:
I am not clear about whether the idea is that a split actually occurs, or whether the other 'worlds' were all there all along and we just find out something about the part of the wave we inhabit.
That seems even more difficult to envisage

Quote:
Also, there appear to be some different interpretations of the many-worlds interpretation, such as the 'emergent universe' interpretation.
Well it seems so.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 07:58 AM   #51
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
That seems even more difficult to envisage
Yes, but I would say that quantum collapse is much more difficult to envisage. I mean just what exactly is supposed to happen?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:06 AM   #52
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Hans, I'm not "saying it's a world". I'm saying that when people talk about many worlds, they are just talking about those different parts of the wavefunction. There's still just the wavefunction.

When it's just two electrons that are entangled, and they aren't entangled with other parts the universe, the rest of the universe hasn't actually branched. It's just those two electrons that are in a superposition of states.
As I was saying, I can grok the superposition of states. (I think.) It's just when people start actually talking about actual parallel universes, that it trips my suspension of disbelief. It may be just bad science reporting, and/or just dumbing it down for the masses, but there is an alarming amount of talk about it being actual parallel universes.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But when they start interacting with other particles, they become entangled with them too. There's no point at which interaction stops leading to entanglement.
Actually, if I'm to believe Susskind -- and I see no reason why I'd distrust him, of all people -- one particle can only be entangled with exactly one other. There is no such thing as an entanglement threesome, so to speak. So no, it doesn't keep going on and on until it entangles the whole universe.

You can have stuff like a bunch of particles over here, each entangled with one over there (e.g., all the photons I've sent down the wire between two computers in the quantum cryptography example). But not something like A is entangled with B, and B is entangled with C, and C is entangled with D, etc.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's just that the entanglement gets messy with a large system. That's decoherence. Collapse postulates that for some unknown reason at some point when enough parts get involved you no longer have a superposition of states but instead you collapse onto a single state. There's no justification for that.
Yes, I get decoherence too. I think.

Not sure why it's so mysterious, though, once one accepts that "measuring" a state doesn't necessarily mean a human doing it, but any interaction where that state matters. E.g., the photons in the quantum cryptography example are "measured" when they reach the sensor at the end of the fiber optic and they have to be either up or down. E.g., the electrons in a double slit experiment are "measured" when they hit the screen and have to have an interaction in one place, not all over the place.

Seems to me like it is quite expected in such a system where the wavefunction CAN collapse for just about any interaction, that one eventually will happen and collapse your coherent system.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Many worlds just says that when systems interact they become entangled. If you start with a superposition of states you end up with a larger system that's also in superposition.
I suppose one could try to figure out a way to say that now the CRT screen is entangled with the cathode, and we're seeing just one of many worlds of all the places it could hit, but I'm still not sure what that actually brings over just accepting that the wavefunction just collapsed.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm not sure where you think hidden variables enter into this picture.
Only in the explanations involving actual parallel universes. Then either you end up with actual superimposed whole universes, or the hidden variable is in which universe you're already in. But if you don't go that route, sure, there is no hidden variable.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 08:18 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:17 AM   #53
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Yes, but I would say that quantum collapse is much more difficult to envisage. I mean just what exactly is supposed to happen?
What is supposed to happen is that, for example, Heisenberg still applies, the Dirac equations still apply, etc. And sometimes that wave function has to hit in a very specific place, because quantum.

If you imagine the old two slit experiment with electrons, each electron is a wave all over the place, but it can only interact with ONE atom on the screen to actually produce a photon. It can't excite all of them a little bit. That's the essence of all quantum physics. At some point the universe has to roll the dice and decide which place that wave will interact in.

Or you have an electron going, it can emit or absorb a photon at some point, because that's what charged particles DO. That Dirac diagram still applies. Except again, it's quantum. It can't emit or absorb just a little bit continuously. It has to be in chunks. So at some point your carefully constructed pair of entangled electrons has to make up its mind of where one of them is, what its spin is, and actually emit or absorb a photon.

Crap happens, the system just randomly decoherred.

I don't see what going MWI helps with. If you have trouble imagining the above, MWI still has the exact same thing happening, just now you say the other possible states went into another world instead of into the (metaphorical) cosmic waste bin. But you're left with exactly the same effect in the system you are in anyway.

If you build a quantum computer for example, you still have to deal with the exact same decoherrence anyway. In whatever universe you're in at the end, one of your atoms in the qubit just emitted a photon and lost coherence. The fact that you can imagine a multiverse that's still somehow coherent is just an extra complication.

Edit: in fact I'd say that if you're a layman and confused by the above, trying to imagine MWI is just more likely to lead you astray and have you imagining something that's all wrong.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 08:24 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:45 AM   #54
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
If you imagine the old two slit experiment with electrons, each electron is a wave all over the place, but it can only interact with ONE atom on the screen to actually produce a photon.
Why? It has been 'all over the place' in the rest of the apparatus, what is so special about the screen that it can't continue to be 'all over the place' on the screen?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:50 AM   #55
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, if I'm to believe Susskind -- and I see no reason why I'd distrust him, of all people -- one particle can only be entangled with exactly one other. There is no such thing as an entanglement threesome, so to speak. So no, it doesn't keep going on and on until it entangles the whole universe.
Can you point me to the quote? I am very far from being an expert but it is my understanding that quantum states that can become entangled do not necessarily have to be single particles.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 08:58 AM   #56
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Why? It has been 'all over the place' in the rest of the apparatus, what is so special about the screen that it can't continue to be 'all over the place' on the screen?
As I was saying, because it's quantum. The actual interaction are discrete, unlike, say, a wave in a pond. That's the particle part of the being both wave and particle.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 09:14 AM   #57
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As I was saying, because it's quantum. The actual interaction are discrete, unlike, say, a wave in a pond. That's the particle part of the being both wave and particle.
"because it's quantum" doesn't tell me what is special about the screen. Does the electron know that the screen is different to the rest of the apparatus? Clearly not.

It has interacted with the rest of the apparatus in a non-discrete way, why not with the screen?

Also, I know of nothing in QM that says that the evolving wave packet must eventually make up its mind and become just one thing.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 27th July 2019 at 09:15 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 09:18 AM   #58
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Can you point me to the quote? I am very far from being an expert but it is my understanding that quantum states that can become entangled do not necessarily have to be single particles.
Try here, starting around the 23:20 or so mark. Namely the monogamy of entanglement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw

And yes, you can have collections of particles which are entangled with each other. E.g., he talks a lot about fully entangled black holes. But it's always each particle from system A entangled with one and only one particle from system B, and viceversa.

Edit: just to make it clear, I suppose they could be entangled in other ways, but not the same qbit. One bit of information can only be shared via entanglement by two things, never by three or more. They could theoretically share another bit of information, but not the same one.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 09:22 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 10:40 AM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And yes, you can have collections of particles which are entangled with each other. E.g., he talks a lot about fully entangled black holes. But it's always each particle from system A entangled with one and only one particle from system B, and viceversa.

Edit: just to make it clear, I suppose they could be entangled in other ways, but not the same qbit. One bit of information can only be shared via entanglement by two things, never by three or more. They could theoretically share another bit of information, but not the same one.
I'm not sure that's true.

Mathematically, entanglement is actually pretty simple to describe. An entangled quantum state is one which cannot be expressed as a product of the states of the two particles. So let's take particle A and B, each of which can be in either state 1 or 2. If particle A is in state 1 and particle B is in state 2, then we can express their combined state as A1*B2.

Suppose particle A is in a superposition of state 1 and 2, and so is particle B, but they are not entangled. Then we can express their state as (A1+A2)*(B1+B2). But if the state was instead A1*B1 + A2*B2, then that's an entangled state.

Now let's suppose we have multiple particles. We'll let them be two-state particles so they could be qubits. Now consider this state:

A1*B1*C1*D1*E1*... + A2*B2*C2*D2*E2*...

This would be a state in which all your particles were entangled. You can easily write down a state for entanglement between arbitrary numbers of qubits. If there's a limit on how many can be individually entangled, that would suggest that you can't form such a state to begin with. But what prevents you from doing so?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 11:47 AM   #60
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Hmm, well, I'll freely admit that I'm not competent enough to answer that. I'm just following what the professor says.

For the record, I will grant that yes, there's nothing to stop one from writing that. It's not mathematically or conceptually impossible or anything. I mean even in the example he draws on the table to say it's impossible, it's not like you can't draw two more ovals or write such a state down.

It's just, I also know that not everything that you can write a formula for also can happen. And he says it can't happen. I'm just trusting him to know what he's talking about.


NB, I realize that that's ultimately an argument from authority, so it's not impossible for him to be wrong. BUT science tends to have the safeguards for authority to actually mean anything. I ASSUME (with all the caveats that assuming entails) that if he's giving lectures where that monogamy is an important premise all over the place, if it were horribly wrong, someone would call him out on it.

But yeah, that's all I've got, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 12:14 PM   #61
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
"because it's quantum" doesn't tell me what is special about the screen. Does the electron know that the screen is different to the rest of the apparatus? Clearly not.
Short version:

Your intuition is basically correct. Nothing is special about the screen, as opposed to anything else the electron can interact with, really. It's just the part we discuss because it's relevant to what that experiment actually illustrates, but otherwise, anything else the electron can bump into is just the same. If an interaction actually happens, it collapses the wave function. Regardless of where it happens.

Long version:

What's different is that there are some atoms there that it can interact with. Or rather, it has to knock out an electron from the valence band of a crystal, which is how the crt "phosphor" works. For that to happen, the incoming electron must find another electron to interact with.

The rest of the CRT is (in the ideal case) just vacuum. There is nothing that the electron can interact with there. It can't do the interaction where it knocks another electron around before hitting the screen, because (in the ideal case) there is nothing for it to hit.

Well, technically it can do other stuff like emit a photon on its own, because that's what a moving charged particle does, or absorb one from the quantum field that is accelerating that electron, but that's a different kind of interaction that what that experiment illustrates.

As you can already see, like virtually any other model in physics, it is simplified to the bare minimum. If you know the joke about the physicist going, "I just approximated the horse as a spherical body in a uniform motion", let's just say that I heard it from a physics professor as a way to illustrate that that's what you SHOULD do.

Now, if you want to discuss the more general case, yeah, there's nothing special about the screen. If the vacuum isn't perfect in the tube, then it can hit an electron in the thin gas inside instead. Or it can hit CRT grille. Or the sides of the tube.

In ALL those cases, when an actual interaction happens, it has to be in just one place (well, within uncertainty limits), not all over the place. That's what we call the wavefunction collapse.

We simplify all that out when discussing the two slit experiment, because it's not relevant to what's being illustrated. But yeah, there's nothing actually special about the screen. Anywhere else the electron can hit, the same happens.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It has interacted with the rest of the apparatus in a non-discrete way, why not with the screen?
Not really, no. It has interacted with everything else in a very discrete way. Just, as I was saying above, in an ideal CRT there just was nothing else between the cathode and the screen for it to interact WITH.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Also, I know of nothing in QM that says that the evolving wave packet must eventually make up its mind and become just one thing.
Well, "make up its mind" is not really an accurate description of it, and for that matter nor was my saying that the universe has to finally roll the dice. It's just poetic language.

It's more just that it can't happen any other way.

The electron may be a wave, but it's also an indivisible (well, as long as it remains an electron) wave packet. Whenever it interacts with something, the whole electron has to do it. You can't have just 1% of it exciting an atom just a bit over there, and 2% of it doing something else over here, and so on.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 12:15 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 01:32 PM   #62
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,554
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Is there a good layman's introduction to MWI?

I can't get my head around how many many many multiple universes can simply pop into existence every second of every day so I am either misunderstanding something badly or missing something that makes it makes sense.
I suspect there is no good layman's introduction possible. Just like you probably couldn't explain a smartphone to some Stone Age tribesman. I often wonder if people who claim to understand actually do.

One often sees pictures of professors standing by a huge white board packed with equations. They're never in front of a wall of words. This is very arcane stuff. I got tired of reading cosmology books because I lost patience with all the metaphors. I wanted to actually understand.

To everyone who posts about these topics: How did you gain your understanding of various theories of cosmology? If the answer is "reading about it," what did you read? What courses did you take? I'm curious if I could understand it in my lifetime.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 02:04 PM   #63
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Cosmology is a very different subject.

QM on the other hand, well, there is no other way than equations. Quite literally NOTHING you've ever seen, or that your brain evolved to deal with, behaves anything like it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 04:31 PM   #64
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Your intuition is basically correct. Nothing is special about the screen, as opposed to anything else the electron can interact with, really. It's just the part we discuss because it's relevant to what that experiment actually illustrates, but otherwise, anything else the electron can bump into is just the same. If an interaction actually happens, it collapses the wave function. Regardless of where it happens.
No because, for example, it can interact with a photon stream and produce a flash without collapsing the wave function.

Particles can have lots of interactions without there being any collapse.

When we talk of a photon passing through a plate of glass and hitting a detector on the other side (or possibly being reflected), it is not just a photon passing through, but it is absorbed and another photon emitted many times before a photon hits the detector and that all happens without any collapse.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 04:49 PM   #65
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The electron may be a wave, but it's also an indivisible (well, as long as it remains an electron) wave packet. Whenever it interacts with something, the whole electron has to do it.
If the wave packet is indivisible then by definition it must interact (as a whole electron) with every atom at the face of the screen.

At least as I understand the concept. If it was indivisible it could not collapse.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 07:20 PM   #66
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
No because, for example, it can interact with a photon stream and produce a flash without collapsing the wave function.

Particles can have lots of interactions without there being any collapse.

When we talk of a photon passing through a plate of glass and hitting a detector on the other side (or possibly being reflected), it is not just a photon passing through, but it is absorbed and another photon emitted many times before a photon hits the detector and that all happens without any collapse.
No, it's not. That's not how light going through glass works. I know it's a common misconception that that's why light is slower in glass, but no, that's not it.

If photons were actually absorbed and re-emitted randomly, it wouldn't be even in the same direction. Then your glass wouldn't be transparent, but rather opaque.

(Well, unless you have a laser, anyway, but even then it would still be a new photon.)

Edit: and we know that because that's what happens with a fully ionized gas, i.e., plasma. It becomes opaque to light. That's why there's a double flash when a nuke explodes. First the air around it is transparent, because photons do NOT get randomly absorbed and re-emitted between it and you. Then it heats up to ionized plasma, at which point, yeah, a photon gets absorbed and re-emitted and bounced around like that a gazillion times between the bomb and you, and that air becomes opaque. Then when it cools down enough that you don't have a mess of charged particle absorbing and re-emitting the photons, at which point it becomes transparent again.

And yes, being absorbed would involve a collapse. Only one electron in that rather opaque sheet of glass would be absorbing the photon, and only one would be emitting a new one. That wave would have to make its mind the <bleep> up (metaphorically speaking) where it actually hit.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 07:30 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 07:22 PM   #67
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
If the wave packet is indivisible then by definition it must interact (as a whole electron) with every atom at the face of the screen.

At least as I understand the concept. If it was indivisible it could not collapse.
I said indivisible, not immutable or permanent or anything of the kind. As in, at the end of the day, it's still just one particle interacting with one other particle.(*) You're thinking of something entirely different.

(*) Well, that's not entirely true, because it involves a third particle in between, namely a photon. Because really that's how charged particles interact with each other. But still, each of the three things involved are just interacting with one other thing, not with everything.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th July 2019 at 07:25 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 05:57 AM   #68
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,663
Susskind is talking about maximally entangled states. There's no limit on the number of particles that can be entangled in general. If there were quantum computers with more than 2 qubits would be impossible.

See for instance:

https://www.askamathematician.com/20...-entanglement/
Quote:
The Monogamy of Entanglement is the statement that “maximally entangled” particles only show up in pairs. Entanglement is a sliding scale, so things can be non-entangled or a little entangled, but when the quantum states of two things are completely tied up in each other, there’s just no room for a third.
Quote:
Today we can create states like this with not just three, but dozens of particles. No big deal. Any reasonable person (with at least a passing familiarity with quantum notation) would say that state looks pretty entangled.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:16 PM   #69
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Just out of interest, here is Seben's speaking to his companion paper to the paper under discussion.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...tum-mechanics/
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:34 PM   #70
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
No, it's not. That's not how light going through glass works. I know it's a common misconception that that's why light is slower in glass, but no, that's not it.
Whatever the details, the photons interact with electrons thoughout the glass.

It is not the case that any particle interaction causes a collapse, as I pointed out with the electron interacting with the photon stream in the double slit experiment without causing a collapse.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:38 PM   #71
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I said indivisible, not immutable or permanent or anything of the kind. As in, at the end of the day, it's still just one particle interacting with one other particle.
But again you come across the problem of what is so special about the screen.

The electron has many interactions before it hits the screen without causing a collapse.

So why does the electron stop being a superposition interacting with multiple other atoms and become a single electron interacting with just one?

You can't just say "because quantum", it didn't collapse in all the other interactions "because quantum".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 11:23 PM   #72
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,663
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Just out of interest, here is Seben's speaking to his companion paper to the paper under discussion.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...tum-mechanics/
Thanks for that.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 12:41 AM   #73
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
But again you come across the problem of what is so special about the screen.

The electron has many interactions before it hits the screen without causing a collapse.

So why does the electron stop being a superposition interacting with multiple other atoms and become a single electron interacting with just one?

You can't just say "because quantum", it didn't collapse in all the other interactions "because quantum".
Because basically it didn't interact with those. Nor with any photon stream; you seem to be just thinking of a very different double slit experiment.

Every time an interaction is one of those Dirac equations (you know, those funny bifurcating diagrams), it's really one on one. It doesn't actually interact a little with a gazillion of other things. ONE electron emits ONE photon, and that ONE photon has to interact with ONE other electron, for the phosphor on the screen to get excited. Add the constraint that it has to be enough to kick that electron out of the valence band, and things get rather limited as to where and when they can happen.

Those equations are really the whole of the interactions that are physically possible there.


But to be less nice, your questions for the last page or so have been repeated instances of: why doesn't RL physics act like some fantasy physics that you just made up, with some interactions that you made up, which don't collapse the wave function just because you said so? Well... do I really need to point out the problem there? Ok, here goes: because the fantasy physics you're making up is nothing like RL physics. So, yeah, big surprise, in RL physics stuff happens even if/when your phantasy world they don't
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 29th July 2019 at 12:47 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 12:47 AM   #74
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,663
Hans, you're using wavefunction collapse to object to many worlds. But under the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse. The wavefunction literally never collapses.

Futhermore, collapse is an added postulate to QM. It's not there in the mathematics. It's something you have to add: somehow a "measurement" causes collapse. But even "measurement" is vaguely defined.

If you want to object to many worlds you should understand what that interpretation is actually saying.

You also seem to think that many worlds isn't consistent with QM, which is odd given that no physicist that I've seen has ever made that objection. Many don't like it, but they all agree that it is a straightforward interpretation of the Schrodinger Equation.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 01:25 AM   #75
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,519
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You also seem to think that many worlds isn't consistent with QM, which is odd given that no physicist that I've seen has ever made that objection. Many don't like it, but they all agree that it is a straightforward interpretation of the Schrodinger Equation.
Most physicists favour the MWI because of Occam's razor (the least number of independent postulates). IIRC Hawking once said that the MWI is "trivially true" - which I can only concur with.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 01:36 AM   #76
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Hans, you're using wavefunction collapse to object to many worlds. But under the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse. The wavefunction literally never collapses.
Yes, well, I'm not talking about many worlds there.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 05:44 PM   #77
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Because basically it didn't interact with those. Nor with any photon stream; you seem to be just thinking of a very different double slit experiment.
I am thinking of the one described by Feynman in "Six Easy Pieces" and also in "Path Integrals".

But let me get it clear what you are saying. You are saying that in QM every time an electron interacts with any other particle, then this causes a wave function collapse? Yes?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 05:47 PM   #78
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Most physicists favour the MWI because of Occam's razor (the least number of independent postulates). IIRC Hawking once said that the MWI is "trivially true" - which I can only concur with.
I guess that some might some might disagree with the "most physicists" part. Some (not very rigorous) surveys seem to indicate that it is not a majority position yet.

But it certainly seems to be gaining ground for the reasons you give.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 06:13 PM   #79
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,926
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But to be less nice, your questions for the last page or so have been repeated instances of: why doesn't RL physics act like some fantasy physics that you just made up, with some interactions that you made up, which don't collapse the wave function just because you said so? Well... do I really need to point out the problem there? Ok, here goes: because the fantasy physics you're making up is nothing like RL physics. So, yeah, big surprise, in RL physics stuff happens even if/when your phantasy world they don't
So, lets be clear here.

You are claiming that in quantum physics, every particle to particle interaction causes collapse? Right?

And when I say "that is not right" you say that I am using "fantasy physics". Right again?

So, if it turns out that you are wrong on that account, then basically all the stuff you said above is about yourself. Do you agree?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2019, 01:08 AM   #80
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,590
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So, lets be clear here.

You are claiming that in quantum physics, every particle to particle interaction causes collapse? Right?

And when I say "that is not right" you say that I am using "fantasy physics". Right again?

So, if it turns out that you are wrong on that account, then basically all the stuff you said above is about yourself. Do you agree?
It depends on the interpretation you are using, but I'm open to being proven wrong, as usual.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th July 2019 at 01:09 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.