A new type of EPR experiment (contd.)

0:00 Now, the equality must be valid, yes, but that is what we need to come up with. Minerals, parameters, and calculations. The final prediction is 0.354. The equality must be, let's say, 0.25. But we have 0.34. It's the 3. And that's the deviation. Right, this is perfect. Now many of our people have had to go down the road and have to go back and forth on various ways to get photons carried, which is threatened by the EPR position. And even though the photons are prepared in a special polarization state, which is eigenstate, after a superposition, the EPR position will be achieved. And this actually is a different type of comment by Professor Wheeler. We run through some pictures of equipment. This is an experiment. We will very quickly do this. The laser in question. This is the tail end of the drag, the late choice. I don't think there's a concept in the literature that is echoing any of the debates that are out there. They are very well known. I want to say that there is one thing, and that is that you use all of these three terms.

7:30 All factors, mechanics, evidence, time, mirror, then the effect of this idea, though you cannot obtain the x, y, minus, y, and z, nevertheless, it is a combination of these areas. We are discussing in an audience of our guests some of the areas that we want to investigate. Thank you. The four of you, that's all we want. All of these can be run on this basic category. That's an interesting one to try with this . It may be possible to do a position momentum complementary. It may be possible to get around to getting more than two. In the philosophy department at Columbia University, Professor Albert took his Ph.D. in physics from Ronald L.S. Hughes. He has taught at the University of South Carolina and at LVU University and is in the Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Mr. Sauer? I've worked in a book and I've been doing a lot of writing. I want to talk to you about a recent theory.

10:00 It's interesting in and of itself and interesting because of the way I think about it. About the problems that such theories are going to have with thematic learning. Let's first just say what the rules are. There's a critical level, that's the level of work. And there are three important aspects, or three aspects that are going to be the most important. One is that what they've gotten is the average team is going to have outcomes. That is, it's supposed to avoid the superposition of different analogies predicted by Schrodinger. That is, it's supposed to guarantee that there can't ever be any such thing in the world as a superposition of measuring the data predicted by Schrodinger. The second thing is, of course, that it ought to preserve the familiarity of the nation between the absence of those measurements and the weight of functions from which it was judged prior. And the third thing is that it ought to be environmentally known to be true of dynamics. I'm going to explain that what you have in mind in particular that the areas you're afraid of are that you don't can be consistent with the fact that isolated, minor, static physical systems have never yet been observed, not today, unfortunately. That is, in other words, that such systems have never yet been observed while they're isolated.

12:30 Here's how it works. It's formulated for an apologist as well, who will just stick with the knowledge. It comes to the end part of the system, like, when there's a huge amount of work carried on, then it's well into something like 1 over 8 times 10. So it's very random, but with fixed probability for human time, the weight comes to be subtly multiplied by a normalized gamma. And as a matter of fact, the product of those two separately normally functions is multiplied the same by an overall component. The form of the Gaussian is this. I'll tell you what the sum is in a minute. Where r sub k is chosen at random from along the origins of n. And the width of the Gaussian is dealt with in the order of 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 2. We'll talk about why that was chosen in a minute. The probability of the scale being centered at any particular point x is stipulated to be proportional to the actual square being a product of the original weight and the scale. That is, the original weight must be evaluated at least just prior to this point. Then, until the next set of multiplication is known for collapse, everything proceeds according to the structure. The probability of such jumps per particle per second, which is taken to be something like 10 to the minus 15 centimeters, and the width of the multiplying element, which is taken to be something like 10 to the minus 5 centimeters, enter this theory as new concepts. There aren't explanations of them, these are simply facts. And that's a whole game. No attempt was made, and it seems that we need these things. These can certainly be respected very locally, but if you compare it to the prior history of mathematics theory, it's quite an extraordinary accomplishment.

15:00 That is, what you've got here is an absolutely physicalism of law of collapses. A law of collapses in which there isn't any thought that is fundamental about measurements or education or observers or minds or any of the vague thoughts that you'd typically refer to as collapses. That is, this is an example of a theory of mathematics that doesn't have to be applied to mathematics. And in that respect, no matter how invertible it is, explicit, in all parts, it's like a stunning account. It's praised for that, I think, very rightly, by the L. And it's for this reason that it's a collapse theory that's worth studying at all. It's the first attempt to prove it in a language that doesn't. This theory can vary from one to the other. The reason is that for isolated language to have an existence, that existence can be so rare as to be completely impossible. This width delta has been chosen as a violation of the conservation of energy, which, after all, don't make for mathematical physics. Nonetheless, those violations of the conservation of energy go to the width delta. Because of the width of the Gaussians, are going to be small enough such that those violations of conservation of energy will be very small, even in mathematical analysis, like absolutely the Gaussians, over a reasonable period. So, it seems reasonable to say that this isn't the way we've been experimenting with it so far, at least in the obvious case. You're hardly ever meeting whatever developed into this theory can very positively do the other job, the last two. That is, producing outcomes, or in most cases, measurements, and producing the right probability.

17:30 Let me tell you what they seem to have in mind. They suppose that every measuring instrument must necessarily indicate what the evidence is. And at that point, every instrument really deserves to be called a measuring instrument. Must necessarily be a macrospec and something more that the pointer doesn't necessarily assume macrospec in different spatial positions in order to indicate different phenomena. And it turns out that if you take a full measuring of the data, then you can see how that works. Suppose the GRW theory is true. If you consider a superposition like, you know, a certain variable has a certain value multiplied by a certain pointer position, plus that same variable has a different value multiplied by a different pointer position, that is, the structure at that position is typically a rise in the discussion of mathematical theory and mathematical analysis. But this theory entails survival for a very short time. Only as long as the time that it takes for the point we're waiting on to be multiplied by 1 in the DRW Gaussian. And that's going to be a very short time because the number of particles in it is now very large. And that's going to be, that's going to be, the time is going to be 1 over n times 10 to the 13th second, where n is the number of the cells required. So it's going to be a very short time. In that kind of short time, one of the terms in superposition plays an active piece of theater, and only the others are practical, and the measurement will have an outcome, that is, the theoretical step is not effective. Moreover, in accordance with the stipulation about probability, the probability that one term survives rather than another is just proportional to the fraction of the norm.

20:00 The question, of course, is whether, as a matter of fact, all mathematical instruments, all recently imagined instruments, are going to be able to do the same thing in other words, in all of them. That's what I was going to talk about here. And let's consider as an example the string theory of law. The measuring arrangement for this is an m-particle. The measured particles begin with a static joint and it feels like it comes from a liquid on a z-direction, flips the weight onto the particle and it's spatially separate, sigma is equal to the plus one, sigma is equal to the minus one. The two components move, perhaps really rapidly, towards two different points, but it's called 1a and the other is b, on a fluorescent screen. And to think of the string schematic as an important thing to imagine in some detail kind of works. The string works probably like this. A particle is grabbing a string and placing it in G. Now it's a column of electrons in the string. And this is going to be a string that will excite the orbitals. A short time later, those electrons return to their grasp, facing the process of making photons. And thus, the vicinity of G becomes a luminous dot, which can then be observed directly by the non-linear diagram. Okay? Whether or not the GRW theory entails that a measurement like this one has a count, which is what it's supposed to be. There never necessarily comes a time in the course of the measurement when the position of a macroscopic object is reduced to some gigantic collection of microscopic objects. These correlate into the measuring decimals. Keeping this in mind, let's rehearse the safety of the measure. The first thing that happens is that the wave function of the particle is magnetically separated into these two elements.

22:30 And it's obvious that no outcome of the thesis is going to collapse. It's going to be precipitate, but yes, nothing in the world except the position of a particle, that is nothing except the position of a single microscopic object, is correlated to the thesis. The probability of collapsing is mass-based, which refers to the electron. I've written down the states. Consider, however, whether those stories can be resolved in such a way as to precipitate the thesis. Here's the crucial point. The GRW collapses, or invariably collapses, not to hide these things, or more precisely, not to narrow down, but it's the energies of the fluorescent electrons, and not their positions, that get correlated here. The GRW collapses harm the right source of collapses and precipitated outcomes here. Let me go through this in a little more depth. Suppose the initial state of the measured particle, well, here's what happens if the initial measured particle is in a certain ion state of the species. Here's what happens when you put down these things. What I mean by these are excited states with fluorescent electrons. These are unexcited states with fluorescent electrons. These are at A, these are at B. In this case, when the electron goes down, the electrons at B are excited and the electrons at A are unexcited. This is the state right after. Then, just back to the impact of the particle on the screen, what we're going to have is a linear combination, okay, and what you want the period to do for you is to kind of reduce the outcome to one of those terms or the other, okay? So, consider whether a GRW section will allow you to make one of the terms in that section go away and allow you to only judge one of the problems. Because this upstate can't be distinguished from the downstate in terms of the position, or here's a summary of what we're trying to figure out, because as a matter of fact, they're all the same things. The science is very different from radii, from ellipsoids, and the science is very different. But the point is that the position differences between those things, due to the fact that they exist, are far smaller than 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 10 to the minus 10.

25:00 And remember that they can't afford to make those gaps narrow because if they do, the consequences of the violations are so large. So, as a matter of fact, the GDRM and these types are going to leave the supervision at home, except perhaps for the way it functions as a single one. We've completely left aside your question of the probability of such a collapse occurring, but maybe we ought to take on the extension of that one too. Georgiou said that that probability might well be the secret of the flow. It's well known, after all, that the un-aging human eye is capable of detecting a very small number of flow times. So perhaps only a very small number of the rest of the life span is needed. It is interesting to calculate those numbers, but however that calculation comes down, for these other reasons, the deeper reasons that I've been speaking about last time, that are totally variable, the GRW theory won't entail the outcome of these converging, dissonant times. So we have to keep looking in later stages for this algorithm. The next stage of the measuring process involves decaying the inside of the left triangle, and the process of heat and smoke. If the first is in this term, then photons would be emitted at you. And if the second term is in, then photons would be emitted at you. So those two photon states can exist, at least at the moment, in terms of the positions of the photons. Let's not worry about that.

27:30 Photons are, of course, relatively distinct. And it's completely clear how they are living life. But the best thing to do is to suppose that photons can exist. The problem at this stage is that you almost no time. It's supposed to be two dots or I don't know, but you almost no time. You have much too little of time for gerontology to allow you to do what you'd like to do. It's like a curve. It's like you're laying in your chair, sitting in your car on a screen. The two quantum wave functions described are almost entirely overlapped. The distinguishability in terms of positions is so great, you still have the same ability. Once again, it resolves inside your eyes, though. But the distinguishability in terms of positions... And we'll be in the same predicament as in previous stages. The measurement, according to conventional mathematics, has been going over and has been going over for a while, but by now, after all, we have heard for it, by now, genuinely macroscopic changes, such changes, which are terms that have to be reversible changes, which are directly visible to the non-aging human eye, have already taken place. Thank you. The technical details are real-time here. A lot of experiments, of course, are simplified or idealized, but those details are signed with any number of other experimental arrangements, which, like this one, are free of macroscopic moving parts that would have served our purpose if we could do that. The point is simply that general reporting will not entail macroscopic changes in the position. Changes in internal states of large numbers of life changes for example... That's what seems to be the result of the DRW group. In order to produce it, what the DRW group are recording in the measuring apparatus is macroscopic. In any or all of the sentences, macroscopic is just talking about thermodynamically reversible physics, time, and so on.

30:00 They don't really require this to be macroscopic, but in addition, as the recording process is normal, macroscopic changes in the system somehow. Let me just make a few closing remarks. Suppose that after all this is one of the decisions there to be made, what would that mean? Well, even when the magnet's out there for you, you have to go out looking for it. Although we've already looked up and now right up to the retina of the human experimenter, we haven't found it. The only place left to look is for people to be inside of that experiment to observe it. So it would turn out, if we wanted to stick with the theory in spite of everything, that the possibility of obtaining a certain fundamental proposal of the world would hinge on certain details of the North Physiology of the human brain. And as a matter of fact, it might turn out that it would hinge on certain details of the North Physiology of the brain of the Dolphins, too, I guess, besides the Dolphins being the interpreters of the Autonomous Equator. And maybe of Martians, too, if the other way would be any sympathy of Martians. And maybe the brains of certain kinds of teachers about the mental line of computers. And that seems like that is to any certain theory or theology. Presumably a position that I think, I don't hear, but I think that, that's a larger lesson. Consideration is roughly a long term term. Partly into a microcosm, no matter how it is.

32:30 I think, I think, one can go from what I... We have also developed some mini-plotters. These are very interesting mini-plotters. Uh-huh. Are you referring to the first mini-plotter? I'm not sure of the mini-plotter. No, no, we got to the 1996 mini-plotter. They follow the generalized theory of convention and unify the dynamics. So they follow the algebraic theory. And one of the exciting results is that they solved, in fact, the normal algebraic equation, and then they followed it with the regularization of the algebraic equation. And it was exactly the same with some of the others. All variables such as the square root of a matrix are important. Maths, that's a big thing. Sometimes it's a big thing. Oh, sure. What would you say about that? Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, in a way, after these comments, I think it becomes less interesting, because he can't do his job, even if it's right or wrong. But, of course, like this, I think it's like a violation of the Constitution. For example, suppose you take an isolated box of particles and pull them down from it, because they're all the same. It's an eternally isolated box. It's, of course, a prediction of a theory like this that they could leave it alone for a while and then shut. I mean, without careful contemplation. Because some of these collapses are going to occur to some of these particles. That's kind of a randomized theory, and they can sit here all the time.

35:00 So the theory is no doubt has been designed in such a way, these concepts have been chosen precisely so as to preserve as much as you can while still having this time. So, in the light of, for instance, like this, if you have a plastic machine that can't move, this can't move now because of the string theory. In actual experiments, we had analysis of mathematics, and in actual experiments, the cohomology measure of mathematics was the same. Right. We stated there was a fugitive set of observable dimensions, and we suggested energy changes were the real thing. And, again, the nature of the universe is that, well, this is not going to be making sense for a month or two, since it's one of those actual galactic experiments. But, anyway, what you point out is very nice. In fact, different experiments will not just supply that energy all at once. That's right. And that gets you back to the century-old problem. That's right. One reaction is accurate. I actually took the trouble to try to work through a theory like that that was specially designed to handle this in particular, and it turns out there are a number of problems with these lines of construction, but it's the whole point of a parallel world. There are a variety of technical problems which seem to be...

37:30 We can talk about that, but there are very serious problems. And of course, that's not attempting to make any kind of research. That's just planning. So try and come up with a theory that you can consider. In particular, Professor Jennifer Boone, who studied with David Baum at London, where he also has a Ph.D. His early work is on hidden variable theory. He has taught at Yale, University of Western Ontario, University of North America, and remains in the variable theory. He's also with us now on the platform. I'm glad to listen to both of them. Thank you for calling me on the interview.