On 01-12-2019 09:12, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 6:11:41 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:10:26 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson
wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 11/17/2019 11:07 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
I forget if I raised this issue here or on another thread. I am
beginning to doubt that isolation is possible. When a particle is
created, how can it be isolated from the environment? If it cannot
be
isolated, if it's never really isolated, the decoherence model
fails
to establish anything. AG
Interactions are quantized like everything else. There's smallest
unit
of action, h. So if the interaction is less than this it's zero.
So it
is possible to isolate variables.
Brent
But if, say, a particle is created by some process, won't it be
entangled with the causal entities defining the process and
therefore be initially, and forever, non-isolated? AG
If that's too hot to handle, try this: if we write the standard
superposition of a decayed or undecayed radioactive atom, is there any
inherent problem with interpreting this superposition to mean it has a
probability to be in one state or the other by applying Born's rule to
each amplitude? Why did this interpretation apparently fall to the
wayside, and was substituted for the baffling interpretation of the
system being in both states simultaneously? AG
It seems like a simple question aching for an answer. Why do
physicists, many of them at least, prefer a baffling unintelligible
interpretation of superposition, say in the case of a radioactive
source, when the obvious non-contradictory one stares them in their
collective faces? AG
The interpretation of a superposition as representing a system that can
be in one or the other state, is incompatible with interference
experiments. And physicist don't care much about interpretation and the
language used to communicate what certain concepts mean. So, many
physicists may say that a particle in a superposition between being in
position x and y is at x and y simultaneously, even though they know
that's not really what a superposition means (obviously there is only
one particle not 2). What matters is the mathematical formulation of the
theory, not the words used to describe this.
Saibal
--
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/e291c638812ba3d1ef9737d85d746d2b%40zonnet.nl.
