Demystifier's latest activity

As a quick aside, as I mentioned in post #94, Mott has nothing to do with Coleman's argument. Mott's analysis is correct, and in fact it...

The state ##|C_1\rangle## corresponds to the trajectory ##T_1##, while the state ##|C_2\rangle## corresponds to the trajectory ##T_2##...

OK, now I understand where the controversy comes from. @PeterDonis has already explained it in one of the posts, so I will just rephrase...

Why irrelevant? I have a very elementary question for you, related to the Mott-Coleman argument. Let ##|C_1\rangle## be a state (of the...

One additional note. The error in the Mott-Coleman argument is conceptually similar to the error of failing to distinguish proper and...

Here is a more general version of my argument that the projector ##L## with the desired properties does not exist. Since ##L## is a...

Well, the associated eigenspace of L with eigenvalue +1 is the entire space of possible linear superpositions of straight-line tracks...

In case it helps, I'll share my interpretation of what Coleman is trying to say. He begins by defining the operator ##L## as having...

But these states have zero probability of appearing, given that exactly one particle interacts with the apparatus. The Hilbert space...

Fine, but I claim that this space, in the given setup, is effectively 2-dimensional as well. That's the crucial thing. Why do you think...

Exactly!

The individual ones do. But the actual quantum state that's prepared is not one of them. It's a linear superposition of all of them...

@gentzen you have not understood my point. Let me explain it by a different, but mathematically equivalent example. Instead of the ion...

Fine, suppose that there are two atoms, one on the left and one on the right. And suppose that you observe that no atom is ionized...

I think I disagree. If there is exactly one scattered particle, then there is no state ##|{\rm neutral}_L,{\rm neutral}_R\rangle##...