On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 12:46:40 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:39:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > And each particle constituent of the nucleus becomes entangled with the > environment when it's created. I am open to criticisms, but I see this as > the solution to the superposition problem. Nothing is isolated. It's just > an unrealistic idealization which leads to paradoxes. AG >
Keep in mind *The superposition property allows the particle to be in a quantum superposition of two or more quantum states at the same time. However, a "quantum state" in quantum mechanics means the probability that a system will be, for example at a position x, not that the system will actually be at position x. * *It does not imply that the particle itself may be in two classical states at once.* * Indeed, quantum mechanics is generally unable to assign values for properties prior to measurement at all.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation @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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2473b468-a3b7-49b9-bf0b-eb46606dcb95%40googlegroups.com.
