Please stop posting HTML-only.

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:29:28PM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote:
> I think I can answer to the whole message by saying "no way" isn't always 
> "the way". The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory was wrong 
> because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect proved that EPR 
> actually worked as advertised, however it does so without violating 
> relativity. Likewise I think there are ways that information, and perhaps 
> other things, may be able to tunnel between worlds, despite the decoherence 
> problem, of which I am well aware. Besides, Plaga has an experiment that is 
> waiting to be tried that would prove other universes - <A 
> href="";></A>&nbsp;.
>  Time will tell, but I think history is on my side.<BR><BR>----- Original 
> Message ----- <BR>From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><BR>To: 
> EverythingList <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM><BR>Subject: Re: Sociological 
> approach <BR>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST) <BR><BR>&gt; 
> <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be 
> proved <BR>&gt; wrong by future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's 
> <BR>&gt; suggestions would definitely constitute a replacement of QM by 
> <BR>&gt; something different. So would aet.radal's (?) suggestion of <BR>&gt; 
> information tunnelling between macroscopic branches. The crucial <BR>&gt; 
> point, which is not taught in introductory QM classes, is the <BR>&gt; theory 
> of Quantum decoherence, for which see the wikipedia article <BR>&gt; and 
> associated references (e.g. the Zurek quant-ph/0306072). <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; 
> This shows that according to QM, the decay time for quantum <BR>&gt; 
> decoherence is astonishingly fast if the product ((position <BR>&gt; shift)^2 
> * mass * temperature) is much bigger than the order of a <BR>&gt; single atom 
> at room temperature. Moreover, the theory has been <BR>&gt; confirmed 
> experimentally in some cases. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Since coherence decays 
> exponentially, after say 100 decay times <BR>&gt; there is essentially no 
> chance of observing interference phenomena, <BR>&gt; which is the *only* way 
> we can demonstrate the existence of other <BR>&gt; branches. "No chance" 
> meaning not once in the history of the <BR>&gt; universe to date. <BR>&gt; 
> <BR>&gt; No existing animal is small enough or cold enough to participate 
> <BR>&gt; directly in quantum interference effects (i.e. to perceptibly 
> <BR>&gt; inhabit different micro-branches simultaneously), hence my claim 
> <BR>&gt; that your "behaviour system", whatever it is, must be in the 
> <BR>&gt; fully-decohered regime. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I have to backpedal some 
> though, because by definition an <BR>&gt; intelligent quantum computer would 
> be in this regime (in practice, <BR>&gt; by being very cold). I certainly 
> don't want to imply that this goal <BR>&gt; is known to be impossible. 
> <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I 
> personally <BR>&gt; *define* different branches of the wave function by the 
> property of <BR>&gt; being fully decoherent. Hence reference to 
> "micro-branches" or <BR>&gt; "micro-histories" for cases where you *can* get 
> interference. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Paddy Leahy <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; 
> ====================================================== <BR>&gt; Dr J. P. 
> Leahy, University of Manchester, <BR>&gt; Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of 
> Physics &amp; Astronomy, <BR>&gt; Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK 
> <BR>&gt; Tel - +44 1477 572636, Fax - +44 1477 571618 <BR><BR>
> -- 
> <p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for 
> Ads Free at<br>
> <a 
> href="";
>  target="_blank"></a></p>
> <BR>
Eugen* Leitl <a href="";>leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820  
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to