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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
