On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro > objects *
If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010, it was both vibrating and not vibrating. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html *>**I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in > 2004 in remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s > Varying Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics". For me the "tell" that it > can't be right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously > noted) is the fact that it implies copies of worlds.* > OK now I understand why you think Everett was wrong, you just ignore evidence indicating that he was right. As for me I don't start out with a n axiom that fundamental reality can't be odd, so if experiment indicates that things are odd then I figure things are odd. And no quantum interpretation will make things not be odd. John K Clark -- 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.
