One thing cannot be in two places at the same time

[DevilsAvocado]

My interpretation is a quantum observable that does not commute with the Hamiltonian of the universe :)

I hear you atyy! The Hamiltonian of the universe is maybe one of my biggest inspirations!

Also Hamilton: In the Interest of the Nation is a great source of excitement...

 

[bhobba]

Quantum teleportation between the two Canary Islands (143 km) is more than enough for me...

All these things are very strange - but so far the QM formalism, or the formalism with very minimal interpretative aspects such as the statistical interpretation or Copenhagen, account for all of them.

If it didn't, that would be BIG news and win an automatic Nobel prize.

Thanks
Bill

 

[batmanandjoker]

Michael Nauenberg, professor emeritus of physics at UC Santa Cruz, has been honored with the 2013 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award.

The Panunzio awards are given to UC emeriti in the humanities or social sciences for their continued achievements after leaving fulltime service. Nauenberg is being recognized for his influential work on the history of science. Nauenberg, who retired from teaching in 1994, is an international authority on the history of physics and mathematics.

Two exerpts from a peer reviewed crituiqe by naunberg
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1996.pdf

B]Both statements are false. Quantum theory is a theory that predicts the
probability of observing physical attributes of a particle, such as position and
momentum. The probability of finding a particle in “two places at once” is
always zero.

According to quantum theory, the square of the wave
function gives the probability that the measurement process yields allowed
values for a set of commuting variables. For this purpose it is necessary to
study an ensemble of atoms which initially are prepared under identically
the same physical conditions. This is fundamentally different from claiming
that the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom itself. The probability
of observing an atom simultaneously at two different locations, by an actual
measurement, is always zero. Hence, it is false to claim that the atom “is
simultaneously in both boxes.”[/B]

 

[mattt]

Interesting, but to be safe, I just leave a little footnote* ... ;)

*This is very interesting, however... I have a daunting feeling we're getting too close to the closed philosophical forum... nevertheless I hope that it is maybe only you and me who read this little 'footnote', and here's what I think: First, I personally don't not put any "metaphysical ingredients" in this soup whatsoever. People are debating determinism vs randomness and "something in-between". If randomness is true = goodbye to free will (i.e. "random slave"), and of course the same goes for determinism. Not sure how the "in-between" would work, however if we are not "random slaves" and there is a deterministic law describing (in theory) everything that will happen, including my future decisions, this law must predict if I will push a red or green button in an experiment tomorrow, and if told this information today – there is (afaik) no physical law preventing me from pushing the opposite button, i.e. a sort of "Frustration Demon" that never will do what the law predicts; if the experimentalists says - "Hehe! We have just finished a new improved calculation that shows that you will push the opposite of what we predict!" and I say "Okay fine!" and then push both buttons simultaneously. Of course this madness can go on forever, and "the law" can never force me to push the right button(s) = determinism fails, and so do randomness. Conclusion; there must be some other physics that we have not discovered yet, because what we have today just doesn't work with my obvious free will and this simple "button experiment"...

Why do you think that information can be told to you?

Your "obvious free will" is just a sensation you have, nothing more (and probably that feeling of "free will" comes from a lack of knowledge about our brains). In other words, the more we will know about our brains, the more we will understand "free will" is just an illusion (in my opinion). But let us stop with these methaphysical issues...

 

[atyy]

Michael Nauenberg, professor emeritus of physics at UC Santa Cruz, has been honored with the 2013 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award.

The Panunzio awards are given to UC emeriti in the humanities or social sciences for their continued achievements after leaving fulltime service. Nauenberg is being recognized for his influential work on the history of science. Nauenberg, who retired from teaching in 1994, is an international authority on the history of physics and mathematics.

Two exerpts from a peer reviewed crituiqe by naunberg
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1996.pdf

B]Both statements are false. Quantum theory is a theory that predicts the
probability of observing physical attributes of a particle, such as position and
momentum. The probability of finding a particle in “two places at once” is
always zero.

According to quantum theory, the square of the wave
function gives the probability that the measurement process yields allowed
values for a set of commuting variables. For this purpose it is necessary to
study an ensemble of atoms which initially are prepared under identically
the same physical conditions. This is fundamentally different from claiming
that the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom itself. The probability
of observing an atom simultaneously at two different locations, by an actual
measurement, is always zero. Hence, it is false to claim that the atom “is
simultaneously in both boxes.”[/B]

Do you have the journal reference showing that Nauenberg's article was peer reviewed?

 

[bohm2]

Conclusion; there must be some other physics that we have not discovered yet, because what we have today just doesn't work with my obvious free will and this simple "button experiment"...

I agree. As do other physicists like Gisin, for example (see p. 5):

Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds"
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.3440v1.pdf

 

[Dale]

This closure should come as no surprise.