On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:24:49 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Jason Resch < <javascript:>[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > [snip] > > Regarding preferred bases, both of the papers I provided which began this > thread address that question: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.2324.pdf > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1104.2324.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFYsW0ZhMgHNubybzlpFjgXUnfXYQ> > >> * Note that quantum interferences between different terms in Eq. (39) are >> extremely small, since overlaps between macroscopically different >> configurations, such as and , are suppressed by the huge dimensionality of >> the corresponding Hilbert space. In fact, for any observables constructed >> out of local operators, matrix elements between macroscopically distinct >> states are highly suppressed, This, therefore, provides preferred bases for >> any macroscopic systems.* > > > and > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf > >> *Decoherence Decoherence1 explains why observers do not experience >> superpositions of macroscopically distinct quantum states, such as a >> superposition of an alive and a dead cat. The key insight is that >> macroscopic objects tend to quickly become entangled with a large number of >> “environmental” degrees of freedom, E, such as thermal photons. In practice >> these degrees of freedom cannot be monitored by the observer. Whenever a >> subsystem E is not monitored, all expectation values behave as if the >> remainin* > > *Bruce; your original comment above was truncated and I can't the original. In any event you seem to speak with forked tongue; that is, out of both sides of your mouth. IOW, on the one hand, from a previous comment a few days ago, you don't have a problem with a cat which is alive and dead simultaneously, yet take solace in the fact that decoherence allegedly resolves this problem; the "key insight" as it were. But UNTIL decoherence occurs, the cat remains in the ostensible paradoxical superposition, even if for only a short time. So what exactly has been gained? Why we never see the paradoxical superposition? What would it look like? TIA, 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.
