On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:27:46 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective >>> illusion. The dead cat and its history of decomposing for the previous >>> hour does not materialize out of nothing from the mere act of looking at it. >>> >>> >>> No measurement is made of the cat, the Geiger counter, or the atom, by >>> anyone outside the isolated system of the box, so according to the >>> Copenhagen Interpretation the superposition does not collapse. The cat is >>> both alive and dead. That is, until someone opens the door to peek inside. >>> In that instant, the wave function collapses and the system randomly >>> “decides” whether the cat is alive or dead. >>> >>> >> >>> If the state collapses to that of the dead cat, what happens to the >>> experiences of the cat who was in the superposition of being alive and dead >>> over the past hour? Do they suddenly vanish as if they never happened at >>> all? Perhaps they never existed in the first place, as Bohr’s anti-realist >>> approach would answer. But this leads to another problem: if the cat is >>> observed to be alive, do all of its memories and experiences over the >>> past hour suddenly pop into existence? Is the cat’s experience of 15 >>> minutes ago ever experienced? >>> >>> >> >>> It is one thing to believe that microscopic particles might be in two >>> different states at once, but quite another to believe the same for a large >>> and complex system, such as a cat. The CI implies that a living, breathing >>> cat, with a consistent history and memories of the previous hour, can >>> instantly materialize from the simple act of observation. >>> >>> >> >>> Schrödinger's experiment has also been extended to highlight other >>> problems. The mathematical physicist Eugene Wigner discussed a thought >>> experiment known as Wigner’s friend. In it, Wigner’s friend is in a room >>> that is sealed off from the rest of the world and in that room is a box >>> containing Schrödinger's cat. The friend opens the box after an hour and >>> notices whether or not the cat is alive. Sometime later, Wigner opens the >>> door to the room to check on his friend. When does the wave function >>> collapse, when the friend checks on the cat, or when Wigner checks on >>> his friend? If it is when the friend checks on the cat, then the isolated >>> system, unobserved by Wigner, has already collapsed (in contradiction to >>> the CI). Yet, if it does not collapse for the friend checking on the cat, >>> this is another contradiction, for he has made an observation of a system >>> in a superposition. The CI seems to have difficulties handling multiple >>> observers. mea >>> >>> >> >> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is >> when the box is opened. What am I missing? The issue of the cat's memory is >> a different matter, problematic IMO. AG * >> >> > > The problem is according to the CI, an isolated system evolves according > to the Shrodinger equation, and therefore does not collapse. But it also > says observation causes collapse. So when you have a conscious observer who > is himself part of an isolated system, from the point of view of another > conscious observer, which rule wins? >
*If the system isn't isolated, it cannot be in a superposition of states. So including the observer as part of the system is self defeating if one wants to do a quantum experiment. The existence of an observer doesn't contradict isolation of the system if the observer is an instrument recording the result. AG * > > Jason > > >> If one takes the stance that the first conscious entity to experience the >>> result of a measurement causes collapse, whether isolated or not, this >>> still leaves the problem of large macroscopic systems with complex >>> histories popping into existence through observation. If we replace the cat >>> with some unconscious device, like a sensor that prints off a receipt with >>> the result of whether or not the poison was released, then a conscious >>> observer opening the box causes the instantaneous appearance of the print >>> out, oddly, with ink that has long-since dried. It has a consistent history >>> seemingly invented at once. >>> >>> Einstein was most impressed with Schrödinger's paper, and in 1950 wrote >>> Schrödinger a letter of praise, saying “You are the only contemporary >>> physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the >>> assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not >>> see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as >>> something independent of what is experimentally established. Their >>> interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of >>> radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which >>> the psi- function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to >>> bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is >>> something independent of the act of observation.” >>> >>> Einstein never accepted the quantum mechanics as a complete theory. To >>> the end of his life he searched for a theory that better fit his ideals of >>> realism, causality and determinism. But the answer he sought was there all >>> along: in the equations of quantum mechanics. Consciously or unconsciously, >>> however, the answer was simply too strange for anyone to consider, even for >>> a moment. It was not until 1957, more than three decades after quantum >>> mechanics was formulated, that anyone was bold enough to point out the >>> answer that was staring everyone in the face. That person was Hugh Everett >>> III. >>> >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:04 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Not every superposition of states implies interference. Connect the >>>> dots. 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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.
