Timeline for Einselection locality in decoherence theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:44 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | That is interesting. I'm now going to read some of your other posts on QM in order to get an idea of the way you see things. Thanks. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:32 | comment | added | Timaeus | But I do think the split really occurs at the configuration space level, I'm wouldn't really call it an einselection if they still had overlapping support in configuration space. But obviously the size matter not the literal support (where it is mathematically different than zero). | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:30 | comment | added | Timaeus | But separating (in configuration space) and staying separated in the key. Information didn't flow to cause that. There wasn't a branch before the split. Once the split happens, then each branch is just its own wavepacket. And information flowing within a branch is just about how the branch wiggles. And decoherence is just about how each branch wiggles in a way that is roughly independent of the other branches. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:28 | comment | added | Timaeus | @StéphaneRollandin I think of the wave as joint-spin-space valued function of configuration space, not a complex valued function of a larger space. So it's not a probability amplitude to me, and since mathematical probability theory is based on a preexisting sample space and so don't even like the word probability because it makes you think theorems from mathematical probability theory apply when they don't. Words that make you think wrong words are bad words. Which means you often have to avoid words mathematician use since they had other motivations besides understanding the universe | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:24 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | To me "separation of a wavepacket in configuration space" = "probability amplitude phases spread into the environment", so that there can be no more interferences. Then you would agree with my answer ? | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:15 | comment | added | Timaeus | @StéphaneRollandin No, I don't think the information flow is even really a distinct issue. Once the split occurs that's what is important. It happened, and it thermodynamically won't be reversed, so that's a fact., The information flow is really about a fact about each whole branch and could be amplified and copied and spread around within the branch because the thermodynamical separation keeps each branch in its own portion of the configuration space. The point is that each branch can then act like it's the only branch. It's 100% just a separation of a wavepacket in configuration space | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 0:07 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | So is what you say in agreement with the answer I wrote ? (I'm guessing you favor the MWI in more or less the same way as @alanf by the way you see information flow as the big deal here) | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 23:54 | comment | added | Timaeus | @StéphaneRollandin And whole classical type external field of the device itself leading to the interaction. It's a bit like a classical action reaction pair. A classical type field is causing a split and each branch of the split has classical type information that can freely flow around in the split. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 23:52 | comment | added | Timaeus | @StéphaneRollandin I'm saying the Hamiltonian causes different spin eigenstates with position wave packets have the position wave packets deflect differently. So one position wave packet with the spin values not an eigenstate gets split, continuously and locally in the sense that the split happens in part of configuration space representing the position of that particle. Decoherence comes in two places, one the cascade of information about which branch the separated waves are in from the position of the one particle to other parts of the system in a thermodynamically irreversible fashion. And | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 12:30 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | Getting a little more abstract now (and back to the terms of my question): is the gist of your answer that I have wrongly considered that the decoherence process A is local (and respectively B), while it is actually automatically correlated with process B via the entanglement of particles A and B ? | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 12:26 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | I have had a hard time mapping your answer to my question :) The fact that you use electrons+spins instead of photons+polarization is ok; more troubling is the fact that nowhere is decoherence mentioned, although I take it that the details you give about the measurement via Stern-Gerlach may have something to do with what the decoherence process looks like in that setup (correct me if that's wrong). The conclusion is just surreal: "That's where that information is getting spread"... I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You lost me :) To be followed in next comment... | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 3:41 | history | edited | Timaeus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1800 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2016 at 3:31 | history | answered | Timaeus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |