On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > 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 >
If you go back to some of my earlier comments, I explicitly stated that there is a small class of macro objects that CAN be put in superpositions, e.g., billiard balls and Buckyballs -- any macro object that can be isolated from its environment, since those objects have well defined deBroglie wave lengths and are therefore able to manifest interference effects. In the case of Buckyballs, IIUC, they manifested interference when very cold, but the interference disappeared when they were heated, at which point they got entangled with their environment. In the experiment described in your link, the interference effect of the superposition required cooling the object to nearly absolute zero, 0.5 deg K. As Bruce pointed out on the Entanglement thread, one doesn't need isolation for a superposition of states to exist, but I think it's a necessary condition for a macro object to manifest quantum properties. However, I admit some confusion on this issue. Since by virtue of the properties of linear algebra, a NON isolated system can be put in a superposition, such as S's cat, but still the cat is in both states simultaneously (alive, undecayed) and (dead, decayed), just as when A = B + C where A, B, C are vectors in linear vector space, and A can be interpreted as manifesting the properties of B and C simultaneously, since it is the sum of B and C. AG > > *>**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. > We need to carefully revisit the issue of superposition and what it implies for quantum effects to be manifested, before we can conclude anything firm about the experiment you cite. AG > > 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 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.
