tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938680703532237797.post3073353863079871025..comments2016-06-02T00:14:23.402-07:00Comments on Spherical Harmonics: On quantum measurement (Part 7: There goes the Copenhagen Interpretation)Chris Adamihttps://plus.google.com/109210086614267908715noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938680703532237797.post-78069169904398501752016-03-24T00:09:20.403-07:002016-03-24T00:09:20.403-07:00Am I correct in understanding that two measurement...Am I correct in understanding that two measurements would be made simultaneously, with two ancilla, and that some synthesis of that result would then allow real truth about reality to be known? If so, can you imagine a human (whatever we are) as somehow performing this role of synthesizing two different simultaneous measurements? membrane spanning proteinshttp://www.creative-biolabs.com/antibody-development-against-membrane-protein.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938680703532237797.post-37456408635718198662016-03-08T18:24:14.199-08:002016-03-08T18:24:14.199-08:00Hey there,
I'm wondering whether you have any...Hey there,<br /><br />I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts on how your conclusions relate to theory of mind.<br /><br />Specifically, you say that for the result of quantum measurements to be known, and not just knowable, a "complex joint measurement" must be made.<br /><br />Am I correct in understanding that two measurements would be made simultaneously, with two ancilla, and that some synthesis of that result would then allow real truth about reality to be known?<br /><br />If so, can you imagine a human (whatever we are) as somehow performing this role of synthesizing two different simultaneous measurements? In many world religious traditions there is the idea that each individual perceives the world through two pathways or perspectives simultaneously, male female, yin yang, etc.<br /><br />I'm sure you've considered how your ideas apply to the nature of human experience; if you've come up with any thoughts you feel like sharing I'd sure be curious to hear.<br /><br />-OwenUnknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00765340231991833053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938680703532237797.post-6163126589130256582016-03-08T13:00:34.972-08:002016-03-08T13:00:34.972-08:00Hi,
Both this blog post and your paper were enjoy...Hi,<br /><br />Both this blog post and your paper were enjoyable reads. Very clear arguments.<br /><br />Though I would argue that the pairwise entropy equations (14) (15) and (16) can be derived even when we assume the quantum state is a bookkeeping tool. We can do this by employing a formalism of Gell-Mann, Griffith, Hartle, Omnes et al.<br /><br />Namely, we use the quantum state as a bookkeeping tool, but apply it to alternative sequences of measurement outcomes, rather than just particular measurement outcomes at a given time. I.e. The Born rule is applied to possible histories.<br /><br />Your paper discusses three consecutive measurements A,B,C, and uses a unitary framework to derive density matrices rhoAB, rhoBC, and rhoAC, and hence their pairwise entropies.<br /><br />We would employ chain operators of different possible outcomes (discussed here) ( http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt10.pdf ). More specifically, if we write down different outcomes to the three measurements as (ijk) and compute their respective chain operators K(ijk), we can sum over i to obtain rhoBC, or sum over j to obtain rhoAC, or sum over k to obtain rhoAB.<br /><br />The set of outcomes of three measurements in the chapter I linked to (equations 10.35) is very similar to the scenario you consider.Thomas Kellynoreply@blogger.com