On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, [email protected] 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 * >> >> >> No. The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation so the >> cross-terms of the superposition can be known and controlled, but it's not >> a mathematical requirement. Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and >> the cat were all perfectly isolated. There would be some eigenstates >> corresponding the cat being alive and some corresponding to it being dead >> and there would be others corresponding to the cat being alive+dead. >> > > *Eigenstates of what operator? AG* > > >> But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state of the >> system would evolve quickly through those to ones where the cat is dead. >> > > > *Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist. How does > decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive and dead > simultaneously even if for a short time? Why dead? AG * > > > You seem to lack common sense about everything. The cat is never alive > and dead. >
*In the real world, of course, but Schroedinger was idealizing the life/death transition. I have no problem with that, and neither should you. Idealizing systems is done physics frequently, for example like writing equations for particles which strictly don't exist. But QM might have a problem if you are allowed to choose a basis in which the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, even if for a very short time. AG* > Even with a stick of dynamite instead of a poison vial it would take the > cat a long time on the scale of atomic interactions to go from alive to > dead. With a poison vial it would be minutes, and during those minutes > parts of the cat would be functioning normally and others would not. How > are you going to define "dead"? are you going to ask for a brain wave > scan? > > Why dead? The cat starts out alive. So what state do you think it will > evolve to? ...transcendent? > *When the experiment ends, that is when the box is opened, the cat might still be alive. AG* > > Brent > > > In theory, being perfectly isolated, it would have a Poincare' recurrence >> time...but it would be many times longer than the age of universe. So what >> do you call the states that the system is in most of the time, where the >> cat is dead. They are superpositions of different microscopic states which >> are macroscopically indistinguishable. Just as were the states when the >> cat was alive. >> >> Brent >> >> -- > 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.
