On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, >>>> is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition >>>> of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their >>>> environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, >>>> and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can >>>> they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal >>>> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the >>>> Heisenberg cut. Where's the line between micro and macro? You think >>>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and >>>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are >>> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like >>> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro >>> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these >>> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. >>> AG* >>> >>> >>> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step >>> where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de >>> Broglie wavelengths of cats. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and >> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the >> MWI based on the SWE)? AG* >> > > *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming > (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme > rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead > simulteously, but only for a very very short duration. So No, I don't see > this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG* > > > The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but that > doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by becoming > entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the radioactive atom > which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed. > > Brent >
*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be isolated? 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.
