On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:29:17 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, [email protected] 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 > IMO, the necessary conditions for quantum interference are coherence AND isolation. 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.
