On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To that I would add the purely epistemic "non-intepretation" of Peres
"No interpretation needed" -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is
take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is
up and calculate", which leads no where really.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or
It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive
dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If
(and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or
definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a
of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are
denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations
then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work
require the superposition to exist).
Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis
superposition in another.
Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be
considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the
having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he
?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of
states - that's just Hilbert space math.
So then when is the system not in a superposition?
When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.