On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 8 Nov 2019, at 01:13, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > 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]> 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 > > > Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. >
*Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG* > I don’t see any mean to avoid this without introducing non unitary > phenomena. [T]he accessibility to interference is very short, because we > can’t isolate the cat, > *Then without interference, the superposition ceases to exist! AG* > and the wave length is very tiny (making perhaps no sense in a GR > accommodation of QM), but in pure elementary QM, superposition are forever. > > Bruno > -- 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/a12597eb-c5c4-4138-b0dd-dde3500c0a54%40googlegroups.com.
