Brent,

thanks for the paper recommendations! I will have a look at them.

Cheers,
Günther

Brent Meeker wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Hello Brent,
>>
>>   
>>> That was my point.  The SWE indicates that every microscopic event that 
>>> happens or doesn't happen stochastically splits the wave function.  But 
>>> these events don't generally cause a split of Kory or other classical 
>>> objects.  Those "objects" are not in some pure state anyway.  They are 
>>> already "fuzzy" and their interaction with the environment keeps the 
>>> fuzzy bundle along the classical path.  There are microscopic splittings 
>>>     
>> good that you address this topic, I have also wondered a lot about how 
>> superposition/MWI/decoherence transfer to the macroscopic arena. 
>> Although I am not so quick to discard "splitting" of macroscopic objects.
>>
>> For instance, you don't have to perform a QM-experiment with explicit 
>> setup, looking around is enough - photons hit your eyes with different 
>> polarizations; why should no splitting occur here?
>>   
> It does in mathematical formalism.  But the different splits are still 
> very close together and so classically they don't make any observable 
> difference - since "you" aren't a pure state in QM the mixture is still 
> "you".
> 
>> Why only in the case where you perform an up/down-amplification experiment?
>>   
> 
> Because in that case the split gets amplified enough to make a 
> noticeable difference in "you" (and other large macroscopic things like 
> instruments).
>> And the experiments of Zeilinger Et al (Superposition of Fullerenes) do 
>> suggest that there is no scale at which superpositions stop. 
> You mean this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402146  ?  I thought 
> it showed that any large warm body, even one as small as C70 would 
> exhibit decoherence just from it's own interchange of IR photons.
> 
> 
>> We are only 
>> not aware of the other persons/objects due to decoherence.
>>   
> Right.   Decoherence makes superpositions inaccessible.  But my point 
> was that you, as a large classical object, are continually being 
> entangled with your environment by interactions via photons, etc.  This 
> makes it impossible to separate out the strands of your superpositions, 
> but in most cases it also ensures that the strands stay close together 
> along the classical path and so the whole bundle can be regarded as a 
> single classical object, "you".  Only when micrscopic QM events get 
> amplified to create a classical difference will there be an observable 
> split of "you", e.g. into the you who saw "up" and the you who saw "down".
> 
>> Can you recommend a paper which addresses this question (of macroscopic 
>> object splitting)?
>>   
> 
> There's a very good review article by Schlosshauer:
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059
> 
> I should qualify all the above by saying that it's how most physicist 
> think things will work out - but they haven't really been worked on 
> yet.  It isn't exactly clear how the classical arises from the quantum - 
> it has it's own "white rabbit problem
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3376
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9412067
> 
> Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to