On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are
of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of quantum and
thermal fluctuations at room temperature -- room temperature because
that is where we do the experiments. And you haven't done that;
neither has Albrecht in the paper you reference. That is why his
paper
is a load of nonsense.
Thermal fluctuations do not need to be eliminated, as they are of pure
quantum mechanical origin. However, if one has to argue about that
then one loses the point of the proposed experiment. At absolute zero
the thermal fluctuations are due to zero point motion, take e.g. the
harmonic oscillator which then has an energy of 1/2 hbar omega.
In generic non-integrable systems you'll have chaotic behavior where
small perturbations grow exponentially.
Not necessarily. It depends on the relevant Lyapunov exponents. The
mean speed of molecules in a gas does not grow exponentially.
Typically the exponents are positive, there is a vast literature on this
subject with some exactly solved cases, e.g. oddly shaped billiard
balls.
Thermal fluctuations will then originate from quantum fluctuations.
Why then are thermal fluctuations temperature dependent? But be that
as it may, thermal fluctuations, and the random motions of molecules
in a gas, say, are not coherent, and there are no interference effects
between the molecules of a gas. Consequently, whatever their origin,
the motion is manifestly classical at room temperature.
Interference is a straw man. It's totally irrelevant whether or not some
particular quantum aspects shows up in an experiment. Thing is that
classical mechanics has already been falsified experimentally, so it's
wrong to invoke a classical picture of what's going as a fundamental
truth and put the burden of proof each time on a QM picture when it's
not readily visible.
QM + decoherence only allows you to use classical reasoning to compute
macroscopic observables with negligible errors, but this does not means
that the macroscopic physical world is classical. It's just like the
fact that GR reduces to classical mechanics, as far as the results of
computations are concerned, but GR is still correct and the classical
picture is still wrong no matter how weak the gravitational fields are.
Saibal
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
