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="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510007";>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510007</A> . > Time will tell, but I think history is on my side.<BR><BR>----- Original > Message ----- <BR>From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><BR>To: > EverythingList <[email protected]><BR>Subject: Re: Sociological > approach <BR>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST) <BR><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be > proved <BR>> wrong by future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's > <BR>> suggestions would definitely constitute a replacement of QM by > <BR>> something different. So would aet.radal's (?) suggestion of <BR>> > information tunnelling between macroscopic branches. The crucial <BR>> > point, which is not taught in introductory QM classes, is the <BR>> theory > of Quantum decoherence, for which see the wikipedia article <BR>> and > associated references (e.g. the Zurek quant-ph/0306072). <BR>> <BR>> > This shows that according to QM, the decay time for quantum <BR>> > decoherence is astonishingly fast if the product ((position <BR>> shift)^2 > * mass * temperature) is much bigger than the order of a <BR>> single atom > at room temperature. Moreover, the theory has been <BR>> confirmed > experimentally in some cases. <BR>> <BR>> Since coherence decays > exponentially, after say 100 decay times <BR>> there is essentially no > chance of observing interference phenomena, <BR>> which is the *only* way > we can demonstrate the existence of other <BR>> branches. "No chance" > meaning not once in the history of the <BR>> universe to date. <BR>> > <BR>> No existing animal is small enough or cold enough to participate > <BR>> directly in quantum interference effects (i.e. to perceptibly > <BR>> inhabit different micro-branches simultaneously), hence my claim > <BR>> that your "behaviour system", whatever it is, must be in the > <BR>> fully-decohered regime. <BR>> <BR>> I have to backpedal some > though, because by definition an <BR>> intelligent quantum computer would > be in this regime (in practice, <BR>> by being very cold). I certainly > don't want to imply that this goal <BR>> is known to be impossible. > <BR>> <BR>> NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I > personally <BR>> *define* different branches of the wave function by the > property of <BR>> being fully decoherent. Hence reference to > "micro-branches" or <BR>> "micro-histories" for cases where you *can* get > interference. <BR>> <BR>> Paddy Leahy <BR>> <BR>> > ====================================================== <BR>> Dr J. P. > Leahy, University of Manchester, <BR>> Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of > Physics & Astronomy, <BR>> Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK > <BR>> Tel - +44 1477 572636, Fax - +44 1477 571618 <BR><BR> > > -- > <p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for > Ads Free at Mail.com<br> > <a > href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01"; > target="_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</a></p> > <BR> -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
