From: <agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the
system. To define the problem you have to specify a wave function.
It is in the expansion of this wave function in terms of a set of
possible eigenvalues that the preferred basis problem arises. So it
is not really down to the SE itself, it is a matter for the wave
function. Each expansion basis defines a set of worlds, and all
bases give different worlds.
*
If we measure E, aren't we defacto measuring p, since the two
observables are related by a simple mathematical expression? Yet you
assert they represent different worlds. Is this because the measuring
apparatus differs if the observable are different? AG
*
Measuring E or p can be related, as for a photon, or unrelated, as for a
measurement of the energy levels of a molecule. But in either case,
there are an infinite number of possible bases in which to express the
energy or momentum of a state. These are the different worlds to which I
am referring -- the difference between an energy or a momentum
measurement is not relevant in this context.
That is correct, but the choice of the basis don’t change the
relative “proportion of histories”.
The choice of basis makes all the difference in the world. Now
that we understand decoherence, the only bases that are useful are
those that are robust against environmental decoherence. That is why
we don't see superpositions of live and dead cats -- that
superposition base is not robust.
*You seem to be regressing, or shall we say relapsing into the
fallacy. ISTM you have previously acknowledged that we don't see
superpositions of live and dead cats because of the fallacy of
including macro entities in a superposition -- which is what Edwin was
trying to warn us against. Nothing to do about robustness against
environmental decoherence, which assumes an actual superposition
exists for some short duration. CMIIAW. AG*
Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a
superposition was a fallacy? Such superpositions are generally very
short lived because of decoherence, but they can certainly be formed.
The basis which would described such macrosopic superpositions is not
robust against decoherence -- which is all that I have ever claimed.
Bruce
--
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.
