On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 2:08:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 1:24:37 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/13/2019 7:36 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 11:48:33 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 11:30:19 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/12/2019 7:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 8:07:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 5:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> What does "realized" mean? made real? Being real is a >>>>>>>> metaphysical concept. Bohr never said anything about components of a >>>>>>>> superposition being real. He famously said “Physics is not about >>>>>>>> how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world” and >>>>>>>> “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as >>>>>>>> real.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The latter comment is ridiculous. Aren't protons, neutrons and >>>>>>> electrons real? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ask Bohr. You never answer my questions; why should I answer yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What questions haven't I answered??? AG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Scan up until you see this symbol "?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I explained what "realized" means by giving an example; S's cat, alive >>>>> and dead simultaneously. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's a representation in the theory. Every measurement that >>>>> "realizes" its state finds it to be one or the other. So what's the >>>>> operational significance of "being realized"? Schroedinger's whole point >>>>> was that an alive and dead cat is never *realized*. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I previously suggested, since there is no operator that has those >>>> cat states as eigenstates, S's example was probably meant to falsify the >>>> then prevailing (and continuing) interpretation of superposition, as it >>>> leads to an absurdity. It's not just about the cat! But the case of spin >>>> could be an exception to my general claim that it's a fallacy to interpret >>>> a superposition to mean the system so described, is in all component >>>> states >>>> simultaneously. AG >>>> >>> >>> S's cat scenario was not simply about the fate of a cat. After all, we >>> already knew a cat can't be alive and dead simultaneously. It must have >>> been to show the fallacy of the prevailing interpretation of superposition. >>> AG >>> >> >> Incidentally, as I pointed out in a previous discussion of this issue, >> decoherence doesn't help. Even though it is extremely rapid, say 10^(-20) >> sec, there is still a finite duration when, according to the standard >> interpretation of superposition, the cat it is alive and dead >> simultaneously. LC might see this as nit-picking, but it isn't. We know a >> cat cannot be alive and dead simultaneously regardless of the time >> duration, however short. >> >> >> What are you talking about? Even when someone dies in a hospital, hooked >> up to all kinds of electronic recording instruments, the time of death >> can't be determined to the second, much less 1e-20sec. >> >> Brent >> > > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the decoherence > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead during > any duration? Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG >
Moreover, that uncertainty wouldn't be a superposition; just some probability based on ignorance. AG > >> So this result, when apply decoherence, doesn't avoid the superposition >> fallacy illustrated by S's cat. It can be traced to the interpretation of >> the superposition of (|decayed> + |undecayed>) of the radioactive source. AG >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, I said I would get back to you about spin superpositions when I >>>>> have time to research the issue. Other than those items, I honestly have >>>>> no >>>>> idea what you're complaining about. Try asking me again. 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57880cde-6295-4459-95c5-2d5ecef15133%40googlegroups.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57880cde-6295-4459-95c5-2d5ecef15133%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/f6b15402-e17f-4e85-8966-15ed4d2e6f88%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f6b15402-e17f-4e85-8966-15ed4d2e6f88%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/df39d59c-4c73-4e30-90e0-aea410895e29%40googlegroups.com.
