Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:50:50 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 8:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>> * When the experiment ends, that is when the box is opened, the cat might 
>> still be alive. AG*
>>
>>
>> Which in the idealization means it didn't evolve.
>>
>
> *You can easily imagine the idealized life/death scenarios (by going to 
> the limit as the duration for the transition goes to zero) in which the 
> experiment ends with the cat alive. So maybe the superposition, or its 
> interpretation, is invalid, implying something awry with QM. AG*
>
>
> Which is the case for the radioactive atom.  
>

? 
 

> Which is why I suggested stop taking the idealization of the alive/dead 
> cat which is just confusing you because you keep slipping in and out  of 
> the idealization and saying, "But the cat can't be both alive and dead.  
> Something wrong with QM."  
>

*I don't think I'm doing that, namely slipping in and out of the 
idealization. If the wf of the cat is the sum of two states, assuming 
entanglement with the radioactive source, isn't the usual interpretation of 
the superposition that the cat is in both component states simultaneously 
(whether or not there is interference)? As Bruce wrote, we're just dealing 
with a linear vector space, and in the cat problem I am just writing the wf 
as Schroedinger did, and asserting that any vector, in this case a 
particular wf which is the sum of two components (that is, the total 
system, the composite of cat and radioactive source) can be interpreted as 
being in both states simultaneously (hence, in this case, alive and dead 
simultaneously). It's really the same situation as saying A = B + C, where 
A,B,C are vectors in a linear vector space, and therefore A manifests or 
expresses both B and C simultaneously. AG*
 

> The cat's fate splits off when the atom decay is detected in the counter.  
> It's alive at that time.  Later it dies. It's never alive+dead.
>

*See above comment. AG *

>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


On 6/12/2018 8:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


An isolated system has energy eigenvalues.  But any realistic 
macroscopic system is only going to conserve energy approximately.  
I think energy eigenvalues are found in atoms and maybe molecules.  
But larger systems (C60 Bucky balls?) tend to emit and absorb 
photons that localize them in a position basis.


I am glad you said "a position basis" and not "the position basis" -- 
a mistake that is frequently made. Position is an operator in a high 
dimensional Hilbert space, and there are an infinite number of 
possible bases for this space, each corresponding to a different 
operator in the space. Which one of these operators (and bases) is 
"the" position basis? The answer from decoherence theory is that it 
is the basis that is stable against environmental decoherence. But, 
as I pointed out in a post on the 'Entanglement' thread, this is 
defined by the operator that commutes with the interaction 
Hamiltonian. However, the interaction Hamiltonian is usually defined 
in terms of point particle interactions, so commutes with the 
position operator because it contains that operator itself. So that 
particular definition of the stable basis is circular -- any chosen 
operator in the position Hilbert space would fit the bill provided it 
was used for both the position measurement and the interaction 
Hamiltonian. 


But is it a vicious circle? Aren't all the position bases going to be 
physically equivalent?


Well, yes. Insofar as you can describe any vector in a linear space in 
terms of any of the possible bases. But no. Not all of these 
descriptions are the same -- what is given by the eigenvalues of one 
operator will be a superposition of the eigenvalues of another operator. 
In terms of position measurements, we get single dots on the screen in 
the basis consisting of delta functions for positions along the line. 
Any other basis will give superpositions of the dots. Only one set of 
basis vectors will describe what we see -- that is the basis that is 
stable against decoherence.


Bruce


Brent

We have to look elsewhere for the final explanation of "the preferred 
basis". It might be that quantum gravity will give an explanation in 
terms of the nature of quantum space-time. But it is possible that 
Bohr was right all along, and the only final explanation is that the 
"classical position" is the only stable basis, making the classical 
prior to the quantum (which might not be an entirely satisfactory 
outcome!)


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 8:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


An isolated system has energy eigenvalues.  But any realistic 
macroscopic system is only going to conserve energy approximately.  I 
think energy eigenvalues are found in atoms and maybe molecules.  But 
larger systems (C60 Bucky balls?) tend to emit and absorb photons 
that localize them in a position basis.


I am glad you said "a position basis" and not "the position basis" -- 
a mistake that is frequently made. Position is an operator in a high 
dimensional Hilbert space, and there are an infinite number of 
possible bases for this space, each corresponding to a different 
operator in the space. Which one of these operators (and bases) is 
"the" position basis? The answer from decoherence theory is that it is 
the basis that is stable against environmental decoherence. But, as I 
pointed out in a post on the 'Entanglement' thread, this is defined by 
the operator that commutes with the interaction Hamiltonian. However, 
the interaction Hamiltonian is usually defined in terms of point 
particle interactions, so commutes with the position operator because 
it contains that operator itself. So that particular definition of the 
stable basis is circular -- any chosen operator in the position 
Hilbert space would fit the bill provided it was used for both the 
position measurement and the interaction Hamiltonian. 


But is it a vicious circle? Aren't all the position bases going to be 
physically equivalent?


Brent

We have to look elsewhere for the final explanation of "the preferred 
basis". It might be that quantum gravity will give an explanation in 
terms of the nature of quantum space-time. But it is possible that 
Bohr was right all along, and the only final explanation is that the 
"classical position" is the only stable basis, making the classical 
prior to the quantum (which might not be an entirely satisfactory 
outcome!)


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 8:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



*
When the experiment ends, that is when the box is opened, the cat
might still be alive. AG*


Which in the idealization means it didn't evolve.


*You can easily imagine the idealized life/death scenarios (by going 
to the limit as the duration for the transition goes to zero) in which 
the experiment ends with the cat alive. So maybe the superposition, or 
its interpretation, is invalid, implying something awry with QM. AG*


Which is the case for the radioactive atom.  Which is why I suggested 
stop taking the idealization of the alive/dead cat which is just 
confusing you because you keep slipping in and out  of the idealization 
and saying, "But the cat can't be both alive and dead. Something wrong 
with QM."  The cat's fate splits off when the atom decay is detected in 
the counter.  It's alive at that time.  Later it dies. It's never 
alive+dead.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


An isolated system has energy eigenvalues.  But any realistic 
macroscopic system is only going to conserve energy approximately.  I 
think energy eigenvalues are found in atoms and maybe molecules.  But 
larger systems (C60 Bucky balls?) tend to emit and absorb photons that 
localize them in a position basis.


I am glad you said "a position basis" and not "the position basis" -- a 
mistake that is frequently made. Position is an operator in a high 
dimensional Hilbert space, and there are an infinite number of possible 
bases for this space, each corresponding to a different operator in the 
space. Which one of these operators (and bases) is "the" position basis? 
The answer from decoherence theory is that it is the basis that is 
stable against environmental decoherence. But, as I pointed out in a 
post on the 'Entanglement' thread, this is defined by the operator that 
commutes with the interaction Hamiltonian. However, the interaction 
Hamiltonian is usually defined in terms of point particle interactions, 
so commutes with the position operator because it contains that operator 
itself. So that particular definition of the stable basis is circular -- 
any chosen operator in the position Hilbert space would fit the bill 
provided it was used for both the position measurement and the 
interaction Hamiltonian. We have to look elsewhere for the final 
explanation of "the preferred basis". It might be that quantum gravity 
will give an explanation in terms of the nature of quantum space-time. 
But it is possible that Bohr was right all along, and the only final 
explanation is that the "classical position" is the only stable basis, 
making the classical prior to the quantum (which might not be an 
entirely satisfactory outcome!)


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:04:37 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
>
> *So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, 
> is this a problem for QM? AG * 
>>
>>
>> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most 
>> useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
>>
>
> *Since you earlier acknowledged that Schroedinger showed the "absurdity" 
> of alive/dead simultaneously, are you now saying the absurd is not only 
> possible in QM, but even when it's never observed? AG*
>
>
> I didn't acknowledge that Schrödinger showed the absurdity of the 
> superposition, all I said was that he claimed that it was absurd. I see no 
> absurdity at all in this superposition.
>

*So you're comfortable that alive/dead simultaneously is not a problem to 
be reckoned with? Even with the choice of Alive/Dead orthogonal basis, both 
components are manifested by the usual wf for this problem, just as your 
comment below implies. Any basis is OK, so we can choose the basis just 
mentioned, and have a superposition with the two usual components I have 
previously written today, and the cat participates in both simultaneously. 
AG *

>
> Remember that a superposition is just the sum of a number of vectors, 
> expressed in some basis that does not include the said sum as a basis 
> vector. There is nothing mysterious in this, and the quantum situation is 
> entirely analogous to superpositions of vectors in conventional linear 
> algebra.
>

*I do get that, fully. AG *

>
> Bruce
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


*So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and 
dead, is this a problem for QM? AG

*


No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the
most useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.


*Since you earlier acknowledged that Schroedinger showed the 
"absurdity" of alive/dead simultaneously, are you now saying the 
absurd is not only possible in QM, but even when it's never observed? AG*


I didn't acknowledge that Schrödinger showed the absurdity of the 
superposition, all I said was that he claimed that it was absurd. I see 
no absurdity at all in this superposition.


Remember that a superposition is just the sum of a number of vectors, 
expressed in some basis that does not include the said sum as a basis 
vector. There is nothing mysterious in this, and the quantum situation 
is entirely analogous to superpositions of vectors in conventional 
linear algebra.


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:38:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 7:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the 
>>> room, is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal 
>>> superposition of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium 
>>> with 
>>> their environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- 
>>> before, 
>>> during, and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, 
>>> nor 
>>> can they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
>>> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
>>> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
>>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
>>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
>> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
>> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
>> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
>> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; 
>> MW. 
>> AG*
>>
>>
>> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
>> where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
>> Broglie wavelengths of cats.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, 
> and Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding 
> the MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>

 *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
 (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
 rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
 simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
 this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*


 The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but 
 that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by 
 becoming entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the 
 radioactive atom which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
>>> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
>>> isolated? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation so the 
>>> cross-terms of the superposition can be known and controlled, but it's not 
>>> a mathematical requirement.  Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and 
>>> the cat were all perfectly isolated.  There would be some eigenstates 
>>> corresponding the cat being alive and some corresponding to it being dead 
>>> and there would be others corresponding to the cat being alive+dead.
>>>
>>  
>> *Eigenstates of what operator? AG*
>>  
>>
>>> But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state of the 
>>> system would evolve quickly through those to ones where the cat is dead. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist. How does 
>> decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive and dead 
>> simultaneously even if for a short time? Why dead? AG *
>>
>>
>> You seem to lack common sense about everything.  The cat is never alive 
>> and dead.  
>>
>
> *In the real world, of course, but Schroedinger was idealizing the 
> life/death transition. I have no problem with that, and neither should you. 
> Idealizing systems is done physics frequently, for example like writing 
> equations for particles which strictly don't exist. But QM might have a 
> problem if you are allowed to choose a basis in which the cat is 
> simultaneously alive and dead, even if fo

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:05:34 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:36:07 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> From: 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
 any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
 isolated? AG *

>>>
>>> *As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, 
>>> Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be isolated 
>>> if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also 
>>> isolated. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions. There 
>>> is absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated in order for 
>>> there to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is the case -- each 
>>> branch of the superposition decoheres by interacting with, and becoming 
>>> entangled with, the environment. That is how quantum measurement theory 
>>> proceeds. Isolation from the environment is a condition you made up, and it 
>>> is not required.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a 
>> superposition requires isolation. But what it does require, at least in the 
>> cat paradox, is interference among the components. Otherwise, Schroedinger 
>> couldn't have concluded that the superposed wf implies the cat is 
>> simultaneously alive and dead. So the issue becomes whether a macro object 
>> like a cat has a well defined wave length, which IIUC, is the necessary 
>> condition for interference. AG
>>
>>
>> That is another misunderstanding on your part. Interference between 
>> components is not necessary for a superposition.
>>
>
>
> *I didn't make that claim. I claimed that interference is necessary for a 
> system in a superposition to be simultaneously in all components of the 
> superposition. AG *
>
>
> I don't know what that means!
>

*You're being modest. Go back to the seminal QM experiment, the double 
slit. The pattern on the screen reflects the reality of interference, from 
which we get the interpretation that the system is somehow in both 
component states simultaneously, each slit causing a component in the 
superposition. Or the interpretation for the hoi polloi that quantum 
particles can be in two different positions simultaneously. AG *

>
> As Brent explained, being "regarded as a superposition" is just choosing a 
>> coordinate system. For the cat, we can have the 'alive/dead' coordinate 
>> system, or an '(alive+dead)/(alive-dead)' coordinate system. In the first, 
>> the cat is either alive or dead; in the second the cat is in a 
>> superposition of the two states whichever basis vector you choose. There 
>> is nothing magical about this, it is just a matter of how you look at it. 
>> Superpositions of classical macro objects are always possible, just by 
>> rotating the basis vectors.
>>
>
>
> * So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and 
> dead, is this a problem for QM? AG *
>
>
> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most 
> useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
>

*Since you earlier acknowledged that Schroedinger showed the "absurdity" of 
alive/dead simultaneously, are you now saying the absurd is not only 
possible in QM, but even when it's never observed? AG*
 

> In general, however, one has a 'preferred basis'; a basis which is stable 
> against environmental decoherence -- the one corresponding to what one 
> actually sees in the laboratory.
>

*You and Brent refuse to explain how decoherence solves the case of 
alive/dead simultaneously if it implies that that result in fact persists 
if only for a very, very short time. AG* 

>
> Bruce
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 7:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:




On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:

*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800
pound elephant in the room, is that the
macro entities which are included in the
seminal superposition of states for
decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium
with their environments, constantly
emitting and absorbing photons -- before,
during, and after their inclusions in
said state. Thus, they never are, nor can
they ever be isolated from their
environments, making this seminal
superposition of states an illusory
construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating
the old debate about the Heisenberg cut. 
Where's the line between micro and macro? 
You think simplistically by considering
only really big stuff as classical and
ignoring the fact that there is a whole
range of sizes.

Brent

*
I have NOT. I have stated several times that
some macro objects are EXCLUDED, such as those
with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like
billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast
set of applicable macro objects, my claim
remains; that there is a fallacy of including
these objects in superpositions, as doing so
leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. AG*


You're missing the point that in every QM
experiment there's a step where micro goes to
macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about
de Broglie wavelengths of cats.

Brent


*Before the Masters of the Universe included
Observers, Instruments, and Environments in the
wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding
the MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*


*As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat
paradox by assuming (falsely) that the cat can be
isolated and then decoheres with extreme rapidly, But
then we're still left with a cat which is alive and
dead simulteously, but only for a very very short
duration.  So No, I don't see this as a solution.
CMIIAW. AG*


The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just
invented), but that doesn't mean it can't be split into
(FAPP) orthogonal states by becoming entangled with the
poison gas which is entangled with the radioactive atom
which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.

Brent


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat
problem. or indeed any quantum superposition, requires the
system being measured to be isolated? AG *


No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need
isolation so the cross-terms of the superposition can be
known and controlled, but it's not a mathematical
requirement.  Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and the
cat were all perfectly isolated.  There would be some
eigenstates corresponding the cat being alive and some
corresponding to it being dead and there would be others
corresponding to the cat being alive+dead.

*Eigenstates of what operator? AG*

But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state
of the system would evolve quickly through those to ones
where the cat is dead.


*Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist.
How does decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive
 

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 



 On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
>> is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal 
>> superposition 
>> of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their 
>> environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, 
>> during, 
>> and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can 
>> they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
>> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *
>>
>>
>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
>> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
> AG*
>
>
> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
> where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
> Broglie wavelengths of cats.
>
> Brent
>

 *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, 
 and Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding 
 the MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*

>>>
>>> *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
>>> (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
>>> rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
>>> simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
>>> this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but 
>>> that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by 
>>> becoming entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the 
>>> radioactive atom which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
>> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
>> isolated? AG *
>>
>>
>> No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation so the 
>> cross-terms of the superposition can be known and controlled, but it's not 
>> a mathematical requirement.  Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and 
>> the cat were all perfectly isolated.  There would be some eigenstates 
>> corresponding the cat being alive and some corresponding to it being dead 
>> and there would be others corresponding to the cat being alive+dead.
>>
>  
> *Eigenstates of what operator? AG*
>  
>
>> But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state of the 
>> system would evolve quickly through those to ones where the cat is dead. 
>>
>
>
> *Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist. How does 
> decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive and dead 
> simultaneously even if for a short time? Why dead? AG *
>
>
> You seem to lack common sense about everything.  The cat is never alive 
> and dead.  
>

*In the real world, of course, but Schroedinger was idealizing the 
life/death transition. I have no problem with that, and neither should you. 
Idealizing systems is done physics frequently, for example like writing 
equations for particles which strictly don't exist. But QM might have a 
problem if you are allowed to choose a basis in which the cat is 
simultaneously alive and dead, even if for a very short time.  AG*
 

> Even with a stick of dynamite instead of a poison vial it would take the 
> cat a long time on the scale of atomic interactions to go from alive to 
> dead.  With a poison vial it would be minutes, and during those minutes 
> parts of the cat would be func

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 6:57 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

From: >



*
So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive
and dead, is this a problem for QM? AG
*


No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the
most useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In
general, however, one has a 'preferred basis'; a basis which is
stable against environmental decoherence -- the one corresponding
to what one actually sees in the laboratory.

Bruce


The basis that is stable against environmental quantum noise has 
energy eigenvalues. Energy is tied to entropy and information. Bases 
such as for angle (Stern Gerlach measurements etc) or angular momentum 
without breaking the SO(3) symmetry so Bessel functions --> Legendre 
functions and L_z defines energy have no such einselection property.


An isolated system has energy eigenvalues.  But any realistic 
macroscopic system is only going to conserve energy approximately. I 
think energy eigenvalues are found in atoms and maybe molecules. But 
larger systems (C60 Bucky balls?) tend to emit and absorb photons that 
localize them in a position basis.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Lawrence Crowell* >


On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:



No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the
most useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In
general, however, one has a 'preferred basis'; a basis which is
stable against environmental decoherence -- the one corresponding
to what one actually sees in the laboratory.

Bruce


The basis that is stable against environmental quantum noise has 
energy eigenvalues.


There may be an energy basis that is stable against environmental 
decoherence, but that is not the only one. There is also a position 
basis, a momentum basis, and so on.


Energy is tied to entropy and information. Bases such as for angle 
(Stern Gerlach measurements etc) or angular momentum without breaking 
the SO(3) symmetry so Bessel functions --> Legendre functions and L_z 
defines energy have no such einselection property.


What are you talking about?

The many bases for the rotations of a spin half particle are all stable 
against decoherence, unless one introduces magnetic fields into the 
interaction with the environment. In other words, orienting one's SG 
magnet at some angle produces a stable eigenstate. But one actually 
requires a position measurement to determine which state this is. Energy 
does not come into the picture.


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
>>
>
> * So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and 
> dead, is this a problem for QM? AG *
>
>
> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most 
> useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In general, however, 
> one has a 'preferred basis'; a basis which is stable against environmental 
> decoherence -- the one corresponding to what one actually sees in the 
> laboratory.
>
> Bruce
>

The basis that is stable against environmental quantum noise has energy 
eigenvalues. Energy is tied to entropy and information. Bases such as for 
angle (Stern Gerlach measurements etc) or angular momentum without breaking 
the SO(3) symmetry so Bessel functions --> Legendre functions and L_z 
defines energy have no such einselection property.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:




On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800
pound elephant in the room, is that the macro
entities which are included in the seminal
superposition of states for decoherence, are
in thermal equilibrium with their
environments, constantly emitting and
absorbing photons -- before, during, and after
their inclusions in said state. Thus, they
never are, nor can they ever be isolated from
their environments, making this seminal
superposition of states an illusory
construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating the
old debate about the Heisenberg cut.  Where's
the line between micro and macro? You think
simplistically by considering only really big
stuff as classical and ignoring the fact that
there is a whole range of sizes.

Brent

*
I have NOT. I have stated several times that some
macro objects are EXCLUDED, such as those with well
defined deBroglie wave lengths like billiard balls
and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable
macro objects, my claim remains; that there is a
fallacy of including these objects in
superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish
conclusion; MW. AG*


You're missing the point that in every QM experiment
there's a step where micro goes to macro. It doesn't
solve anything to rant about de Broglie wavelengths
of cats.

Brent


*Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers,
Instruments, and Environments in the wf's, did quantum
experiments imply MW (excluding the MWI based on the
SWE)?  AG*


*As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by
assuming (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then
decoheres with extreme rapidly, But then we're still left
with a cat which is alive and dead simulteously, but only
for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see this as
a solution. CMIIAW. AG*


The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just
invented), but that doesn't mean it can't be split into
(FAPP) orthogonal states by becoming entangled with the
poison gas which is entangled with the radioactive atom which
is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.

Brent


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or
indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system being
measured to be isolated? AG *


No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation
so the cross-terms of the superposition can be known and
controlled, but it's not a mathematical requirement.  Suppose
Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and the cat were all perfectly
isolated.  There would be some eigenstates corresponding the cat
being alive and some corresponding to it being dead and there
would be others corresponding to the cat being alive+dead.

*Eigenstates of what operator? AG*

But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state of
the system would evolve quickly through those to ones where the
cat is dead.


*Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist. How 
does decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive and dead 
simultaneously even if for a short time? Why dead? AG

*


You seem to lack common sense about everything.  The cat is never alive 
and dead.  Even with a stick of dynamite instead of a poison vial it 
would take the cat a long time on the scale of atomic interactions to go 
from alive to dead.  With a poison vial it would be minutes, and during 
those minutes parts of the cat would be functioning normally and others 
would not.  How are you going to define "dead"?  are you going to ask 
for a brain wave scan?


Why d

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal >
>
> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
>> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy 
>> (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in 
>> superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in 
>> the latter. Stay tuned. AG
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
>> been experimentally verified.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is interpreted. 
> Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. AG
>
>
> Use Wikipedia!
>
> But an overview by Zeh, the founder of decoherence, 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512078, or the review by Schlosshauer 
> should help.
>
>
> That paper by Zeh is very good on Everett, including his chapter 6 on 
> Non-locality.
>
>
> I was very sorry to hear recently that Zeh died a month or so ago. He was 
> a seminal thinker who made important contributions to Quantum Foundations 
> and the theory of time.
>
> Bruce
>

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Dieter_Zeh

He died April 15. I somehow missed that.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 4:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: >


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem.
or indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system
being measured to be isolated? AG *


*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive,
Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must
be isolated if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this
implies the cat is also isolated. AG*


That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions.
There is absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated
in order for there to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is
the case -- each branch of the superposition decoheres by
interacting with, and becoming entangled with, the environment.
That is how quantum measurement theory proceeds. Isolation from
the environment is a condition you made up, and it is not required.

Bruce


For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a 
superposition requires isolation. But what it does require, at least 
in the cat paradox, is interference among the components. Otherwise, 
Schroedinger couldn't have concluded that the superposed wf implies 
the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. So the issue becomes whether 
a macro object like a cat has a well defined wave length, which IIUC, 
is the necessary condition for interference. AG


Another invented condition.  The cat never has a "well defined wave 
length".  It's different parts, all the way down to the atomic level 
have different masses and momenta.  Together the classical cat is 
defined by a bundle of macroscopically similar vectors in a very high 
dimensional Hilbert space.  Interactions, as with poison gas molecules, 
can cause those vectors to evolve differently.  But they are 
"interfering" in any basis you could define all the time.


You have been misled by reading about experiments in which one 
*/observes/* and */measures/* interference.  It's like saying you need 
to isolate atoms of a gas in order for them to collide.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:36:07 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat
problem. or indeed any quantum superposition, requires
the system being measured to be isolated? AG *


*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  (
(Alive, Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac
symbols, must be isolated if it's regarded as a
superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also isolated. AG*


That is the root of your problem in understanding
superpositions. There is absolutely no requirement for the
system to be isolated in order for there to be a
superposition. In fact, the opposite is the case -- each
branch of the superposition decoheres by interacting with,
and becoming entangled with, the environment. That is how
quantum measurement theory proceeds. Isolation from the
environment is a condition you made up, and it is not required.

Bruce


For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a
superposition requires isolation. But what it does require, at
least in the cat paradox, is interference among the components.
Otherwise, Schroedinger couldn't have concluded that the
superposed wf implies the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.
So the issue becomes whether a macro object like a cat has a well
defined wave length, which IIUC, is the necessary condition for
interference. AG


That is another misunderstanding on your part. Interference
between components is not necessary for a superposition.


*I didn't make that claim. I claimed that interference is necessary 
for a system in a superposition to be simultaneously in all components 
of the superposition. AG

*


I don't know what that means!


As Brent explained, being "regarded as a superposition" is just
choosing a coordinate system. For the cat, we can have the
'alive/dead' coordinate system, or an '(alive+dead)/(alive-dead)'
coordinate system. In the first, the cat is either alive or dead;
in the second the cat is in a superposition of the two
stateswhichever basis vector you choose. There is nothing magical
about this, it is just a matter of how you look at it.
Superpositions of classical macro objects are always possible,
just by rotating the basis vectors.

*
So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and 
dead, is this a problem for QM? AG

*


No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most 
useful basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In general, 
however, one has a 'preferred basis'; a basis which is stable against 
environmental decoherence -- the one corresponding to what one actually 
sees in the laboratory.


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:36:07 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
>>> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
>>> isolated? AG *
>>>
>>
>> *As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, 
>> Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be isolated 
>> if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also 
>> isolated. AG*
>>
>>
>> That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions. There 
>> is absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated in order for 
>> there to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is the case -- each 
>> branch of the superposition decoheres by interacting with, and becoming 
>> entangled with, the environment. That is how quantum measurement theory 
>> proceeds. Isolation from the environment is a condition you made up, and it 
>> is not required.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a 
> superposition requires isolation. But what it does require, at least in the 
> cat paradox, is interference among the components. Otherwise, Schroedinger 
> couldn't have concluded that the superposed wf implies the cat is 
> simultaneously alive and dead. So the issue becomes whether a macro object 
> like a cat has a well defined wave length, which IIUC, is the necessary 
> condition for interference. AG
>
>
> That is another misunderstanding on your part. Interference between 
> components is not necessary for a superposition.
>


*I didn't make that claim. I claimed that interference is necessary for a 
system in a superposition to be simultaneously in all components of the 
superposition. AG *

 

> As Brent explained, being "regarded as a superposition" is just choosing a 
> coordinate system. For the cat, we can have the 'alive/dead' coordinate 
> system, or an '(alive+dead)/(alive-dead)' coordinate system. In the first, 
> the cat is either alive or dead; in the second the cat is in a 
> superposition of the two states whichever basis vector you choose. There 
> is nothing magical about this, it is just a matter of how you look at it. 
> Superpositions of classical macro objects are always possible, just by 
> rotating the basis vectors.
>

*So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, 
is this a problem for QM? AG *

>
> Bruce
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
> is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal 
> superposition 
> of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their 
> environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, 
> during, 
> and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can 
> they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *
>
>
> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>
> Brent
>

 * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
 EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
 billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
 objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
 objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
 AG*


 You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
 where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
 Broglie wavelengths of cats.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
>>> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
>>> MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>>>
>>
>> *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
>> (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
>> rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
>> this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*
>>
>>
>> The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but 
>> that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by 
>> becoming entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the 
>> radioactive atom which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
> isolated? AG *
>
>
> No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation so the 
> cross-terms of the superposition can be known and controlled, but it's not 
> a mathematical requirement.  Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, and 
> the cat were all perfectly isolated.  There would be some eigenstates 
> corresponding the cat being alive and some corresponding to it being dead 
> and there would be others corresponding to the cat being alive+dead.
>
 
*Eigenstates of what operator? AG*
 

> But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the state of the system 
> would evolve quickly through those to ones where the cat is dead. 
>



*Why unstable? Because we never see it? Maybe it doesn't exist. How does 
decoherence explain the unintelligible state of alive and dead 
simultaneously even if for a short time? Why dead? AG *

> In theory, being perfectly isolated, it would have a Poincare' recurrence 
> time...but it would be many times longer than the age of universe.  So what 
> do you call the states that the system is in most of the time, where the 
> cat is dead.  They are superpositions of different microscopic states which 
> are macroscopically indistinguishable.  Just as were the states when the 
> cat was alive. 
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem.
or indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system
being measured to be isolated? AG *


*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive,
Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must
be isolated if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this
implies the cat is also isolated. AG*


That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions.
There is absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated
in order for there to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is
the case -- each branch of the superposition decoheres by
interacting with, and becoming entangled with, the environment.
That is how quantum measurement theory proceeds. Isolation from
the environment is a condition you made up, and it is not required.

Bruce


For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a 
superposition requires isolation. But what it does require, at least 
in the cat paradox, is interference among the components. Otherwise, 
Schroedinger couldn't have concluded that the superposed wf implies 
the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. So the issue becomes whether 
a macro object like a cat has a well defined wave length, which IIUC, 
is the necessary condition for interference. AG


That is another misunderstanding on your part. Interference between 
components is not necessary for a superposition. As Brent explained, 
being "regarded as a superposition" is just choosing a coordinate 
system. For the cat, we can have the 'alive/dead' coordinate system, or 
an '(alive+dead)/(alive-dead)' coordinate system. In the first, the cat 
is either alive or dead; in the second the cat is in a superposition of 
the two stateswhichever basis vector you choose. There is nothing 
magical about this, it is just a matter of how you look at it. 
Superpositions of classical macro objects are always possible, just by 
rotating the basis vectors.


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
>> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
>> isolated? AG *
>>
>
> *As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, Undecayed) 
> + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be isolated if it's 
> regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also isolated. 
> AG*
>
>
> That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions. There is 
> absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated in order for there 
> to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is the case -- each branch of 
> the superposition decoheres by interacting with, and becoming entangled 
> with, the environment. That is how quantum measurement theory proceeds. 
> Isolation from the environment is a condition you made up, and it is not 
> required.
>
> Bruce
>

For reasons not worth explaining, I have had doubts whether a superposition 
requires isolation. But what it does require, at least in the cat paradox, 
is interference among the components. Otherwise, Schroedinger couldn't have 
concluded that the superposed wf implies the cat is simultaneously alive 
and dead. So the issue becomes whether a macro object like a cat has a well 
defined wave length, which IIUC, is the necessary condition for 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 3:31 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, 
Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be 
isolated if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the 
cat is also isolated. AG *


Being "regarded as a superposition" is just choosing a coordinate 
system.  If I choose up/down as the basis vectors of my Hibert space for 
an SG then a left or right polarized electron will be in a superposition 
of up/down. When Zurek talks about being "entangled with the 
environment" he just means the basis of the environment eigenstates, for 
any operator we could create, is unknown and unknowable.  So the 
measuring system is in a superposition with the environment, but it's 
complicated and we don't know what it is; so we treat it classically.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:




On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound
elephant in the room, is that the macro entities
which are included in the seminal superposition of
states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium
with their environments, constantly emitting and
absorbing photons -- before, during, and after
their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never
are, nor can they ever be isolated from their
environments, making this seminal superposition of
states an illusory construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating the old
debate about the Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line
between micro and macro?  You think simplistically
by considering only really big stuff as classical
and ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of
sizes.

Brent

*
I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro
objects are EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined
deBroglie wave lengths like billiard balls and
Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro
objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of
including these objects in superpositions, as doing so
leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. AG*


You're missing the point that in every QM experiment
there's a step where micro goes to macro. It doesn't
solve anything to rant about de Broglie wavelengths of cats.

Brent


*Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers,
Instruments, and Environments in the wf's, did quantum
experiments imply MW (excluding the MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*


*As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by
assuming (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then
decoheres with extreme rapidly, But then we're still left with a
cat which is alive and dead simulteously, but only for a very
very short duration.  So No, I don't see this as a solution.
CMIIAW. AG*


The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented),
but that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal
states by becoming entangled with the poison gas which is
entangled with the radioactive atom which is in a superposition of
decayed and not-decayed.

Brent


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or 
indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured 
to be isolated? AG *


No.  The experimentally interesting cases tend to need isolation so the 
cross-terms of the superposition can be known and controlled, but it's 
not a mathematical requirement.  Suppose Schroedinger, his lab, his box, 
and the cat were all perfectly isolated.  There would be some 
eigenstates corresponding the cat being alive and some corresponding to 
it being dead and there would be others corresponding to the cat being 
alive+dead.  But the latter would be unstable in the sense that the 
state of the system would evolve quickly through those to ones where the 
cat is dead.  In theory, being perfectly isolated, it would have a 
Poincare' recurrence time...but it would be many times longer than the 
age of universe. So what do you call the states that the system is in 
most of the time, where the cat is dead.  They are superpositions of 
different microscopic states which are macroscopically 
indistinguishable. Just as were the states when the cat was alive.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or
indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system being
measured to be isolated? AG *


*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, 
Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be 
isolated if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the 
cat is also isolated. AG*


That is the root of your problem in understanding superpositions. There 
is absolutely no requirement for the system to be isolated in order for 
there to be a superposition. In fact, the opposite is the case -- each 
branch of the superposition decoheres by interacting with, and becoming 
entangled with, the environment. That is how quantum measurement theory 
proceeds. Isolation from the environment is a condition you made up, and 
it is not required.


Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:18:42 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
> is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal 
> superposition 
> of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their 
> environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, 
> during, 
> and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can 
> they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *
>
>
> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>
> Brent
>

 * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
 EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
 billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
 objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
 objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
 AG*


 You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
 where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
 Broglie wavelengths of cats.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
>>> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
>>> MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>>>
>>
>> *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
>> (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
>> rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
>> this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*
>>
>>
>> The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but 
>> that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by 
>> becoming entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the 
>> radioactive atom which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed 
> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be 
> isolated? AG *
>

*As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, Undecayed) 
+ (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be isolated if it's 
regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also isolated. 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
 is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition 
 of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their 
 environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, 
 and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can 
 they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
 superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *


 Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
 Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
 simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
 ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.

 Brent

>>>
>>> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
>>> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
>>> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
>>> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
>>> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
>>> AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
>>> where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
>>> Broglie wavelengths of cats.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
>> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
>> MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>>
>
> *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
> (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
> rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
> simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
> this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*
>
>
> The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but that 
> doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by becoming 
> entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the radioactive atom 
> which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.
>
> Brent
>

*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed any 
quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be isolated? 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:




On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant
in the room, is that the macro entities which are
included in the seminal superposition of states for
decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their
environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons
-- before, during, and after their inclusions in said
state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be
isolated from their environments, making this seminal
superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate
about the Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro
and macro?  You think simplistically by considering only
really big stuff as classical and ignoring the fact that
there is a whole range of sizes.

Brent

*
I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro
objects are EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined
deBroglie wave lengths like billiard balls and Buckyballs.
For the vast set of applicable macro objects, my claim
remains; that there is a fallacy of including these objects
in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion;
MW. AG*


You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a
step where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to
rant about de Broglie wavelengths of cats.

Brent


*Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers,
Instruments, and Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments
imply MW (excluding the MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*


*As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
(falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't 
see this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*


The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but 
that doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by 
becoming entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the 
radioactive atom which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
>>> that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
>>> states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
>>> constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after 
>>> their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be 
>>> isolated from their environments, making this seminal superposition of 
>>> states an illusory construction. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
>>> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
>>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
>>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
>> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
>> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
>> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
>> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
>> AG*
>>
>>
>> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step where 
>> micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de Broglie 
>> wavelengths of cats.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
> MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>

*As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
(falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
this as a solution. CMIIAW. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
>> that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
>> states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
>> constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after 
>> their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be 
>> isolated from their environments, making this seminal superposition of 
>> states an illusory construction. AG *
>>
>>
>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
>> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
> AG*
>
>
> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step where 
> micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de Broglie 
> wavelengths of cats.
>
> Brent
>

*Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
MWI based on the SWE)?  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the
room, is that the macro entities which are included in the
seminal superposition of states for decoherence, are in thermal
equilibrium with their environments, constantly emitting and
absorbing photons -- before, during, and after their inclusions
in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be
isolated from their environments, making this seminal
superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the
Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You
think simplistically by considering only really big stuff as
classical and ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.

Brent

*
I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; 
MW. AG*


You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
Broglie wavelengths of cats.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
> that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
> states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
> constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after 
> their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be 
> isolated from their environments, making this seminal superposition of 
> states an illusory construction. AG *
>
>
> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>
> Brent
>


*I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal 
superposition of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium 
with their environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- 
before, during, and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they 
never are, nor can they ever be isolated from their environments, 
making this seminal superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *


Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 12 giugno 2018 alle 10.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case 
> > that Schrodinger's Cat implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the 
> > former shows the fallacy (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating 
> > macro systems in superpositions, which is more or less the starting state 
> > equation used in the latter. Stay tuned. AGT
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > The simplest argument is that macro objects (other than the 
> > precious few exceptions previously noted, such as Buckyballs) have no well 
> > defined deBroglie wave lengths. Hence, they cannot participate in a 
> > superposition of states which inherently implies interference among its 
> > components. A macro object has a huge set of individual entanglements, each 
> > with its own well defined deBroglie wave length, but the net interference 
> > among them statistically washes out to zero. We can go further. A macro 
> > object, virtually by definition, can NEVER be isolated from its 
> > environment. Thus, it can NEVER manifest a well defined wave length to make 
> > a superposition possible. It's NOT the case that a macro object can 
> > participate in a superposition for even a very short time and then 
> > decohere. This is where Schroedinger went wrong. He assumed a non existent 
> > superposition of states, which if existent would imply the cat must be 
> > alive and dead simultaneously, even if for a very short duration if 
> > decoherence theory is applied. But decoherence theory posits a solution for 
> > a non existent problem. It assumes that a superposed state can exist for a 
> > macro object for an exceedingly short time until it decoheres. However, as 
> > is the case for Scroedinger's cat or any macro object, it can NEVER be 
> > ISOLATED from its environment, which is the necessary condition for 
> > positing a superposition. Thus, decoherence theory need not be applied; 
> > indeed, should not be applied. And if it isn't generally applied for macro 
> > entities, then the wf cannot imply other worlds.  CMIIAW. AG
> > 
> > > 
> 
> The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
> that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
> states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
> constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after their 
> inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be isolated 
> from their environments, making this seminal superposition of states an 
> illusory construction. AG
> 

In the August 8, 1935 letter to Schrödinger Albert Einstein says that he will 
illustrate a problem by means of a “crude macroscopic example”.

The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a charge 
of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and 
where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can 
quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the 
psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course 
of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a 
sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of 
interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of 
a real state of affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded 
and not-exploded.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
>> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy 
>> (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in 
>> superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in 
>> the latter. Stay tuned. AGT
>>
>
> *The simplest argument is that macro objects (other than the precious few 
> exceptions previously noted, such as Buckyballs) have no well defined 
> deBroglie wave lengths. Hence, they cannot participate in a superposition 
> of states which inherently implies interference among its components. A 
> macro object has a huge set of individual entanglements, each with its own 
> well defined deBroglie wave length, but the net interference among them 
> statistically washes out to zero. We can go further. A macro object, 
> virtually by definition, can NEVER be isolated from its environment. Thus, 
> it can NEVER manifest a well defined wave length to make a superposition 
> possible. It's NOT the case that a macro object can participate in a 
> superposition for even a very short time and then decohere. This is where 
> Schroedinger went wrong. He assumed a non existent superposition of states, 
> which if existent would imply the cat must be alive and dead 
> simultaneously, even if for a very short duration if decoherence theory is 
> applied. But decoherence theory posits a solution for a non existent 
> problem. It assumes that a superposed state can exist for a macro object 
> for an exceedingly short time until it decoheres. However, as is the case 
> for Scroedinger's cat or any macro object, it can NEVER be ISOLATED from 
> its environment, which is the necessary condition for positing a 
> superposition. Thus, decoherence theory need not be applied; indeed, should 
> not be applied. And if it isn't generally applied for macro entities, then 
> the wf cannot imply other worlds.  CMIIAW. AG*
>


*The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is 
that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of 
states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, 
constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, and after 
their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can they ever be 
isolated from their environments, making this seminal superposition of 
states an illusory construction. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.