On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, >>>>>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's >>>>>> in >>>>>> both states simultaneously? AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> None, since it isn't. >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>> >>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG >>>> >>> >>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill >>> the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I >>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed >> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG >> > > > No. > > It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously. > > That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it. > > @philipthrift >
I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that imply there is no interference? 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/6ffddf8e-ebf2-4191-a32e-5f549691a6e0%40googlegroups.com.
