On 5/30/2019 2:47 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:38:10 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 5/30/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:03:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 5/30/2019 11:47 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 8:02:12 PM UTC+2, Brent
wrote:
I wonder if philosophers have noticed that
properties can be separated from objects in
quantum mechanics, c.f. Cheshire Cat experiments?
What does it mean that a property is "separated"
from an object? That an object loses a property?
That happens all the time.
arXiv:1312.3775v1 [quant-ph] 13 Dec 2013
Brent
We know that a molecule's histories can interfere with
each other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment>
In 2013, the double-slit experiment was successfully
performed with molecules that each comprised 810 atoms
(whose total mass was over 10,000 atomic mass units
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_units>).
Does this mean that a molecule's properties can be
separated from itself?
That's a non-sequitur. A double-slit experiment is not
the same as a Cheshire cat experiment.
Brent
The same QM principles apply. It's just plain quantum
mechanics going on whether it's a particle
> or
molecule, or which experiment is being done:
*Quantum Cheshire Cat effect may be explained by standard
quantum mechanics.*
@philipthrift
You imply that detecting the spin on a path different from the object is
somehow contrary to standard quantum mechanics. I don't see that. It's
just contrary to an assumption about the interaction of position
measurements and spin measurements, i.e. the assumption that they have
to happen at the same place. It's no more strange than violating the
assumption that a particle can't go thru two different slits at the same
time.
/"In no way this is a definitive answer," Corrêa said. "As usual in
science, new explanations can always show up and are always welcome, and
that's what characterizes its development. In fact, we can't even say
that we proved the authors wrong in their interpretation—we simply
provided a different interpretation of the results./
Brent
The "Cheshire Cat" claim that a property can be separated from the
particle is just*pseudoscience*, as far as I can tell.
@philipthrift
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af0de48f-dcd3-4c6f-8dba-8cfe0e831442%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af0de48f-dcd3-4c6f-8dba-8cfe0e831442%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ca5d482-2f9a-6a3c-82a5-105974ebcae9%40verizon.net.
