On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:38:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 7:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com 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*
>
>
> Why?  You've just agreed that over short time scales it's impossible to 
> say whether the cat is alive or dead.  If you're going to use an 
> idealization then you have to stick with it; you can't throw it over half 
> way through your analysis and say, "...but the cat can't be both alive and 
> dead."
>


*I am sticking with the idealization. IMO Schroedinger idealized the 
life/death transition and claimed that BEFORE the box is opened, alive/dead 
simultaneously was implied by the superposition. (I think that's a valid 
conclusion, but might require interference.) What you and Bruce seem to be 
saying is that that the apparently paradoxical basis is not preferred so we 
never see it, but exists as a state of the system before the measurement. 
So I don't see how preferred bases saves anyone's butt. 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*
>
>
> Which in the idealization means it didn't evolve.
>

*You can easily imagine the idealized life/death scenarios (by going to the 
limit as the duration for the transition goes to zero) in which the 
experiment ends with the cat alive. So maybe the superposition, or its 
interpretation, is invalid, implying something awry with QM. AG*

>
> Brent
>
>
>
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> <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 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.

Reply via email to