On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:27:46 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, <[email protected] <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, <[email protected]> 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 [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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <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 [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.
