Anonym said:
“There are "many histories" a photon could have, such as passing through one slit or two, Davies writes in his new book, "Cosmic Jackpot."” – I have no idea who is Paul Davies and certainly do not intent to read his book. I consider all “interpretations” without exception nonsense. I am not familiar with the classical theory which required interpretation.
However, if you mean Y. Aharonov and L.Vaidman, Phys.Rev.A, 41, 11, (1990): then no/yes.
No: The identification of the classical physics with the set of real Hilbert spaces was the result obtained in my Ph.D. study. The approach was strongly supported by L.P. Horwitz, Y. Aharonov and N. Rosen. When I had been involved into Quantum Information and Quantum Communication stuff it was clear for me that the central problem is the communication between the quantum computer and the readers/writers. It was obvious that the languages should be matched.
Yes: The solution was just in front of my eyes but somehow I did not see it. I do not remember why I looked at Yakir paper (I usually do that to know what he is doing). I started read the paper and met the footnote. I was shocked. I realized that I see something very important. Several hours I looked on two lines and finally the coin collapsed: it explains why the wave packet spread (notice that exp (i*phi) =cos (phi) +i*sin (phi) – the wave packet with the exactly the same structure).
The rest was practically instant.
No, I did not write it yet. Notice that the mistake in footnote mentioned above is the relative phase. Now if you apply the same operator to |psi1> together you will get the Hadamard matrix and the Zeilinger “eigenschaften”. It works in general. That is the idea (the content).
I don’t know about anyone else, but that one is connected with my discussions with CarlB and DrChinese. Another one in progress about the coherent states is connected with my discussions mainly with Vanesch and most important for me uses the idea (explanations) provided for me by Hans de Vries. It isn’t finished yet but related to my already published paper that may be interesting for you: physics/0504008.
By the way, in the session where Hans de Vries did that it was somebody that called his explanations “garbage”. I could not hold myself cool and called him “idiot”.
I believe that your idea is also something. Now I understand why ZapperZ did not answer. If you understand something in the details of particle accelerators, go ahead.
Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
Regards, Dany.
my, my, my---let's see...
I consider all “interpretations” without exception nonsense. I am not familiar with the classical theory which required interpretation.
I get the feeling you're thinking of something specific here (maybe, CI ?). My idea of 'interpretation' is that it follows some of the analogies in the story of the house build on sand.
I read "Measurement of the Schrodinger wave of a single particle"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9304147
"This is our main argument for associating physical reality with the quantum state of a single particle."
and
"If we are interested in all the details of this
time-dependent state we cannot use measurements which are too slow. Every measurement
of the density and current of a Schrodinger wave must last a period of
time which is smaller then the characteristic time of the evolution of the state; and
the time intervals between consecutive protections must be even smaller. However,
in principle, Schrodinger wave measurement to any desired accuracy is possible:
for any desired accuracy there is a density of the state-verification measurements
that will protect the state from being changed due to the measurement interaction."
and
"Our direct measurements
of the density and the current of the Schrodinger wave challenge the
commonly accepted notion that quantum states can be observed fully only when
the measurement is performed on an ensemble of identical systems."
and can see that you admire his (Aharonov's) work---do you know him personally? (you referred to him as 'Yakir', like he may be an acquaintance)
Y. Aharonov and L.Vaidman, Phys.Rev.A, 41, 11, (1990)
Resolution of a “Retrodiction Paradox” ?---is this the paper you mean?
It isn’t finished yet but related to my already published paper that may be interesting for you: physics/0504008.
yes--I read that at the same time as your other one---and I can see a 'little' correlation to the interest in accelerators.
and (I am grateful to L.P. Horwitz, Y. Aharonov, S. Nussinov, and I.D. Vagner
for the stimulating discussions.)---Was this a 'local' thing/conversation?---yes, I was looking for 'something' in that thread and... ---oh well)
Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
Something specific?---or did you go to Princeton?
It is amazing to me how little lab work he did--(or, at least, how it is written about his 'distain for'/'absence of' it)
---------------------
The rest was practically instant.
Isn't that one of the greatest feelings when it happens--and it doesn't seem to happen often enough.
