On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no paradox. It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't >>>>> be dead and alive at the same time. It's as though your physics was >>>>> stuck >>>>> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies >>>>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic. >>>>> >>>>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum >>>>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the >>>>> cat >>>>> to less than a several seconds. It would be simply meaningless to say >>>>> the >>>>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same >>>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to >>>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the >>>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with >>>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> Prevailing when? 1927? There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 >>>> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot >>>> be >>>> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a >>>> nano-second...because...WHY? The radioactive atom can be in a >>>> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond. Why doesn't >>>> that violate your Aristotelean logic? >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either >>> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG >>> >>> >>> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed >>> assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by >>> interaction with the environment. The interactions that produce >>> decoherence all proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not >>> instantaneous. So the atom and the cat are no different...except the time >>> for which one can keep them isolated from the environment. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That >> would put this issue to bed. AG >> >> >> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the >> speed of light, are not instantaneous. The atomic nucleus is relatively >> isolated. That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its >> half-life. >> >> Brent >> > > But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So > nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG > > > But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus. It's an interaction of > the nucleus with the environment. The alpha particle or whatever tunnels > out in order to interact with the Geiger counter. But the probability of > tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a > low probability of interaction. > > Brent >
Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in isolation from the universe. 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/dded6ad5-b7fe-44e4-ac82-d232ad3d6859%40googlegroups.com.
