On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 5:58:20 PM UTC-6, smitra wrote: > > 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 >
Of course there is not "the mathematical formulation" (like the one approved catechism of an orthodox denomination), but there are multiple mathematical formulations that can match empirical data. @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/25d5d8a8-2ff9-4663-b882-40bafe4f00d9%40googlegroups.com.
