On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 [email protected] <javascript:> ha scritto: > > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus > occurs in that time before decoherence. > > > Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with > its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what > does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG > > > Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical > and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these > sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons > through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored > cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such > physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have > nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of > elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are > procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on > and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into > phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the > geometry of your detectors. > > LC > > > *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of > states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead > simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed > simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those > "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of > other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in > its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a > natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to > Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence > theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of > virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence > doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, > apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These > considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of > states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of > orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of > the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this > interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of > providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to > one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to > leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, > or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to > above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes > exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * > > > It is not for short time, it is forever. > > > *No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was > the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very > short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to > decohere long before it is associated with any experiment. AG* > > > You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the > Copenhagen theory suggest. > > > *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states > is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to > offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a > superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition > SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little > pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of > basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum > systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many > bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* > > ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have > much meaning (operationally, physically). > > Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a > ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements? > > No - in general - we cannot say that. >
*I wasn't suggesting "between". Take the cat paradox. It's based on the interpretation that the composite system as a superposition of cat and radioactive source, namely, (Undecayed, Alive) + (Decayed, Dead), is in both states simultaneously before the measurement. Isn't this the standard interpretation of a superposition? If not, why did Schroedinger apparently think otherwise, in an attempt to debunk it? AG * > > An excellent book both on QM, interpretation and quantum logic is the book > by Bub. I am rereading it. > > Now, the MW is not so extravagant when you put it in the Mechanist frame. > > > *Then Joe the Plumber has immense power to create universes. I don't buy > it. AG* > > > Indeed, it is expected once you believe that Diophantine equations have > solutions. All computations or histories exist, with relative > probabilities structured by the constraints of relative self-correctness. > From that view, it is the uniqueness of the physical universe which seems > extravagant, I would say. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > LC > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - > undecayed? 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. > > > > -- > 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.
