On 12/11/2017 6:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com <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?
Coherent superposition.
For the cat, I have no clue how to do that experiment. Do you? AG
No. Nor for the coin toss.
All you have to do is scale up the Cheshire cat experiment and show that
the angular momentum of the coin can take a different path through
spacetime than the coin itself. :-) A Nobel prize awaits.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
