On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 >> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is >> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether >> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? >> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of >> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the >> wf? TIA, AG >> >> >> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. >> It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage >> of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted >> as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the >> technical factorisation reason already explained. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits. > > What about sending cats? > > > You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely > more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead > state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly. See my explanation to > Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state > makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to > you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be > exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most > macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with > superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic > effect. > > > Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is > extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing > must be correspondingly small. The C60 experiment was only made possible > by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer. > > Brent >
I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but finite duration? 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/bd809b30-38bf-403d-a673-0b4a46ea11cf%40googlegroups.com.
