Rebuttal to SimonA
SimonA said:
... But with Eye_in_the_Sky I do believe you are confusing the quantum formalism with the Copenhagan Interpretation.
In an earlier post, I responded to the following question:
Do you have any idea how Afshar concludes this separates one QM interpretation from another?
The essential content of my response was (from
post #13 of this thread):
I think it's fair to say that, in the literal sense, by definition, an "interpretation of a formalism" is something necessarily consistent with that formalism. Of course, in the process of formulating such an interpretation, one could err in some way, and consequently, end up with something which does, in fact, contradict the formalism.
... what Afshar and Cramer have claimed[*] regarding "Copenhagen" and "Many Worlds" amounts to the following:
These interpretations fail on account of certain unwitting implications which contradict the quantum formalism.
That is to say, Afshar and Cramer claim that the authors of these interpretations have unintentionally "stepped out of line" with the quantum formalism, making assertions which, when given the proper consideration, turn out to have implications which contradict the formalism itself.[**]
_____________________
[*] This is only one of two parts of their claim. The other part is that these interpretations fail in relation to what the experimental facts happen to be (whence the significance of the Afshar results).
[**] Does the content of this post serve to dispel the strangeness about which ZapperZ wrote (in the second post of this thread)?
...
SimonA, does this information cause you to change your belief concerning the above cited potential point of confusion on my part?
--------------------------
--------------------------
SimonA said:
... Afshsar is measuring the 'particle' going through the slit ...
No, Afshar is
not measuring the 'particle'
going through one (or the other) of the slits. Afshar is
measuring the 'particle'
position at the screen σ2 (see
diagram).
An "
inference" is then made by which the "σ
2-measurement" is
deemed to be
physically equivalent to the "slit-measurement".
I could now go on and cite for you various principles of CI and how they "forbid" such an "
inference". But that may well do nothing to change your opinion, because in your view CI - as a
"formal body of principles" - is
inconsistent. That means:
if your position is true,
then one can use CI to
prove anything(!). Therefore, in order to satisfy you, I must "step out" of CI and produce a
generalized-consistency-proof for CI (... which, if not impossible, is probably next to impossible).
So, then, what we really need in order to settle this matter (once and for all) is a clear argument - which you yourself (or by an authority you trust) find to be acceptable - by which CI (allegedly)
implies that the "σ
2-measurement" and the "slit-measurement" are
physically equivalent ... and I will then
plainly demonstrate how
that argument involves the
erroneous application of some principle.
[... Perhaps, you can quote a source, or provide a link. In the absence of that, perhaps you would accept the manner in which
I am able to "fill in the
gaps" in Cramer's PowerPoint Presentation. In fact, I have already attempted to do
just that in
post #15 of this thread, entitled
Cramer, in the name of "Copenhagen".
Moreover, in
post #19 of this thread, in the second half of that post, I have provided two distinct points of view from CI which (with the appropriate consideration) may (... although, I doubt it) convince you of the invalidity of Cramer's claim.]
---------------------
