On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > 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? >
*Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > 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 [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.
