I wasn't taking that into account. Yes, there are problems at the quantum level, I agree, but I'm not talking about a quantum copy. I'm talking about a molecular copy.
Strange things happen on the quantum level, but the probabilities average out as you gain more and more particles such that the chair you are sitting in will be solid enough even though one out of every few trillion 'seatings' you could very well fall through the chair. My opinion is that if you could make a molecular copy of a Strad (organic compounds included) it would probably be 99.99999% similar, which is almost 100% similar - and you probably wouldn't be able to tell any difference whatsoever. The differences are clearly shown in Chemistry. Say, for example, one has one atom of Copper, it would be difficult to know the precise position, location of the particle let alone sub atomic particles. However, with a few Mols of the stuff, you really don't have to worry so much about the density changing, or coefficient of thermal expansion changing, etc. In fact, an entire modern world has been built with near certitude in mind that steel will hold when you make a bridge, that Iron will rust, that densities of materials are pretty much known, etc. We have yet to record any substantial object teleporting itself under controlled conditions to another location due to quantum physics - although it is possible with a very small probability, I suppose. Industry is made on QA of complex machinery and complex materials such that producing millions of the same object yields pretty good consistency overall. Yes, the quantum world is quite different, but the larger world of Newtonian physics is sound enough that I am pretty sure I shouldn't leave my house every morning through my 2nd story window - assuming I had a 2nd story. A Strad has enough molecules in it that assuming you could make an exact copy molecule for molecule, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I realize this is just a thought experiment as we don't have the technology to do it - but who knows. one day we might. -William -----Original Message----- From: Steve Haflich <[email protected]> To: The Horn List <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jul 10, 2011 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [Hornlist] Send in the clones... [email protected] wrote: ... and I thought I was clear on how I defined 'perfect duplication'? ... Besides, it is really theoretical at this point because we lack the technology to do such a thing. Maybe once we can ... Unfortunately, one can make a strong argument that it is not even theoretically possible. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that one cannot control both position and velocity (i.e. energy) of an atomic or subatomic particle (e.g. the valence electrons that participate in neural operation) with perfect precision. And even if you tried, you could not check the accuracy of your duplicate. Behavior of the two _nearly_ duplicate systems would soon diverge owing to quantum effects. It's unclear whether that divergence would cause diferent macro behavior -- indeed that's a very interesting question -- but in physics there is no such thing as a "perfect" copy. Nor in mouthpiece copies, but that's a different issue. _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
