On 10/8/2024 10:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
The formulation I object to is saying that "It's not in any
definite state, not even in a superposition of states". To
say a superposition be "valid" is strange terminology. I
don't know what it could mean except that the object was in a
coherent mixture of two different states. i.e. a superposition.
*If you don't mind, could you please define "a coherent mixture of two
different states." TY, AG*
In terms of wave functions it means the two have a definite, fixed phase
relation. Operationally it means they can produce an interference pattern.
Brent
--
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/1a5a2117-83b4-4f45-a3c9-dbc3df90d056%40gmail.com.
