On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: >> > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>>> On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>>> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>>>>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>>>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never >> >>>>>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for >> >>>>>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus. >> >>>>>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a >> >>>>>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more >> >>>>>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier >> >>>>>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the >> >>>>>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or >> >>>>>> momentum far below any level of possible detection. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but irrelevant >> >>>>> for theoretical consideration. >> >>>> >> >>>> This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot >> >>>> this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to >> >>>> obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to >> >>>> offer. >> >>> >> >>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not >> >>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread. >> >> >> >> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a >> >> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities >> >> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event >> >> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties. >> >> >> >> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do >> >> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics' >> >> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the >> >> clear physics of the situation. >> >> >> > >> > That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply >> > that there is no branching due to the coin toss. >> >> It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no >> possibility of interference between heads and tails. >> >> Bruce >> > > Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, which > IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG > > > It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if there is > interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive? > > Bruce >
What are the necessary conditions for interference? For the cat, I have no clue how to do that experiment. Do you? AG -- 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.
