Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 19:07, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/18/2018 10:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
>>> On 6/17/2018 10:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and another 
> color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of light on several 
> photorecptors and the one with the right pigment fires its neuron.  So it 
> is energy detection.
 
 But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer focus 
 point objects to points on the retina.
 
>> I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in HEP to 
>> comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by bimetals or 
>> strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way.
> 
> Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
> position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are just 
> changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is the first 
> classical level.
 
 Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in a 
 different position basis all of this physics will be very different. The 
 classical universe will not look the same at all.
>>> 
>>> I guess I don't understand your idea of "position basis".  My understanding 
>>> of linear algebra is that any basis that spans the space can be used to 
>>> represent any relation between structures.  Why should choosing a different 
>>> basis make any difference to the physics aside from the simplicity of its 
>>> representation.  It's just a coordinate basis in Hilbert space.  Or are you 
>>> thinking of bases different from position, e.g. momentum, energy, 
>>> live/dead,...
>> 
>> Yes, there does seem to be a degree of miscommunication. I am not think of 
>> different variables such as energy, momentum, or the like. These are not 
>> different bases, they are different variables and they inhabit different 
>> Hilbert spaces. So a change of base in one Hilbert space does not take you 
>> to another space.

?


>> 
>> No, what I am considering is the possibility of different bases in a single 
>> space, such as position space. If you assume an eignevector interpretation 
>> of a set of basis vectors, then a different basis will correspond to the 
>> eigenvalues of some different operator. It still acts in the same, position, 
>> space, so it must be regarded as a position operator, but it will have quite 
>> different physical properties from the usual position operator that we use 
>> from classical mechanics, where the eigenvectors are delta functions along 
>> the real line.
>> 
>> Because this will be a different operator, it will correspond to different 
>> physics. For instance, if the position eigenvalues are superpositions of 
>> delta functions, corresponding to superpositions of different points, the 
>> point interactions of particles that we assume in constructing the 
>> interaction Hamiltonian will be replaced by some set of interactions between 
>> superpositions of points. This why I suggest that the physics will be 
>> different. If the physics is the same under this basis change, why is there 
>> any question about the preferred basis? The point is that a change of basis 
>> does not mean that we simply go to measure some other variable. I think 
>> Schlosshauer makes this mistake, if I remember correctly; he seems to 
>> suggest that the basis choice is between position or energy in most cases. 
>> That is just wrong.
> 
> I think you're wrong about position operators.

I agree. The Hilbert space is always the same. 


> Sure, we usually think of dividing space into little bins and a position 
> operator has eigenvectors that are 1 in some bin and zero in the other.  But 
> we could do the same analysis in the Fourier transform of that space and the 
> delta function locations would be integrals over the wave numbers.  It would 
> be the same physics. 

Yes.


> There would still be localized interactions.  The Hamiltonian would be 
> written as an interaction of a superposition of points, except they would all 
> destructive interfere except at one location.  So the physics would be the 
> same.
> 
> Consider the paradigmatic two slit experiment.  The pattern you get on the 
> screen, which is predicted by the Schroedinger equation, is described in your 
> idea of position space by a lot of little bins that have different degrees of 
> probability, so if you put a detector there you get a certain count rate.  
> But that pattern on the screen is a certain wavelet and if you transformed 
> the Schroedinger equation to wavelet space that whole pattern would be just 
> one point in the space and it would be the eigenvector of the two slit 
> experiment.
> 
> The problem of the preferred basis arises in trying to explain why we measure 
> position of needles but not momentum or energy and why we don't 

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

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


On 6/18/2018 10:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

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

On 6/17/2018 10:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and 
another color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of 
light on several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment 
fires its neuron.  So it is energy detection.


But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer 
focus point objects to points on the retina.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in 
HEP to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by 
bimetals or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential 
way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point. Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are 
just changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is 
the first classical level.


Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in 
a different position basis all of this physics will be very 
different. The classical universe will not look the same at all.


I guess I don't understand your idea of "position basis".  My 
understanding of linear algebra is that any basis that spans the 
space can be used to represent any relation between structures.  Why 
should choosing a different basis make any difference to the physics 
aside from the simplicity of its representation.  It's just a 
coordinate basis in Hilbert space.  Or are you thinking of bases 
different from position, e.g. momentum, energy, live/dead,...


Yes, there does seem to be a degree of miscommunication. I am not 
think of different variables such as energy, momentum, or the like. 
These are not different bases, they are different variables and they 
inhabit different Hilbert spaces. So a change of base in one Hilbert 
space does not take you to another space.


No, what I am considering is the possibility of different bases in a 
single space, such as position space. If you assume an eignevector 
interpretation of a set of basis vectors, then a different basis will 
correspond to the eigenvalues of some different operator. It still 
acts in the same, position, space, so it must be regarded as a 
position operator, but it will have quite different physical 
properties from the usual position operator that we use from 
classical mechanics, where the eigenvectors are delta functions along 
the real line.


Because this will be a different operator, it will correspond to 
different physics. For instance, if the position eigenvalues are 
superpositions of delta functions, corresponding to superpositions of 
different points, the point interactions of particles that we assume 
in constructing the interaction Hamiltonian will be replaced by some 
set of interactions between superpositions of points. This why I 
suggest that the physics will be different. If the physics is the 
same under this basis change, why is there any question about the 
preferred basis? The point is that a change of basis does not mean 
that we simply go to measure some other variable. I think 
Schlosshauer makes this mistake, if I remember correctly; he seems to 
suggest that the basis choice is between position or energy in most 
cases. That is just wrong.


I think you're wrong about position operators. Sure, we usually think 
of dividing space into little bins and a position operator has 
eigenvectors that are 1 in some bin and zero in the other.  But we 
could do the same analysis in the Fourier transform of that space and 
the delta function locations would be integrals over the wave 
numbers.  It would be the same physics.  There would still be 
localized interactions.  The Hamiltonian would be written as an 
interaction of a superposition of points, except they would all 
destructive interfere except at one location.  So the physics would be 
the same.


I think that refers to regarding a change of basis as a simple 
coordinate transformation, while retaining the actual operators of the 
current (classical) theory, albeit in the form as transformed by the 
change of coordinates. Clearly, that would not change the physics, it 
would just change the way we describe it. The physics would not change 
because you haven't changed what you mean by a measurement of position 
because you still use the same position operator.


Consider the paradigmatic two slit experiment.  The pattern you get on 
the screen, which is predicted by the Schroedinger equation, is 
described in your idea of position space by a lot of little bins that 
have different degrees of probability, so if you put a detector there 
you get a certain count rate. But that pattern on the screen is a 
certain wavelet and if you transformed the Schroedinger equation to 
wavelet space that whole pattern would be just one point in the space 
and it would be the eigenvector of the two slit experiment.


That is 

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/18/2018 10:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 
On 6/17/2018 10:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and 
another color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of 
light on several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment 
fires its neuron.  So it is energy detection.


But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer 
focus point objects to points on the retina.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in 
HEP to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by 
bimetals or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential 
way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are 
just changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is the 
first classical level.


Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in 
a different position basis all of this physics will be very 
different. The classical universe will not look the same at all.


I guess I don't understand your idea of "position basis".  My 
understanding of linear algebra is that any basis that spans the 
space can be used to represent any relation between structures.  Why 
should choosing a different basis make any difference to the physics 
aside from the simplicity of its representation.  It's just a 
coordinate basis in Hilbert space.  Or are you thinking of bases 
different from position, e.g. momentum, energy, live/dead,...


Yes, there does seem to be a degree of miscommunication. I am not 
think of different variables such as energy, momentum, or the like. 
These are not different bases, they are different variables and they 
inhabit different Hilbert spaces. So a change of base in one Hilbert 
space does not take you to another space.


No, what I am considering is the possibility of different bases in a 
single space, such as position space. If you assume an eignevector 
interpretation of a set of basis vectors, then a different basis will 
correspond to the eigenvalues of some different operator. It still 
acts in the same, position, space, so it must be regarded as a 
position operator, but it will have quite different physical 
properties from the usual position operator that we use from classical 
mechanics, where the eigenvectors are delta functions along the real line.


Because this will be a different operator, it will correspond to 
different physics. For instance, if the position eigenvalues are 
superpositions of delta functions, corresponding to superpositions of 
different points, the point interactions of particles that we assume 
in constructing the interaction Hamiltonian will be replaced by some 
set of interactions between superpositions of points. This why I 
suggest that the physics will be different. If the physics is the same 
under this basis change, why is there any question about the preferred 
basis? The point is that a change of basis does not mean that we 
simply go to measure some other variable. I think Schlosshauer makes 
this mistake, if I remember correctly; he seems to suggest that the 
basis choice is between position or energy in most cases. That is just 
wrong.


I think you're wrong about position operators. Sure, we usually think of 
dividing space into little bins and a position operator has eigenvectors 
that are 1 in some bin and zero in the other.  But we could do the same 
analysis in the Fourier transform of that space and the delta function 
locations would be integrals over the wave numbers.  It would be the 
same physics.  There would still be localized interactions.  The 
Hamiltonian would be written as an interaction of a superposition of 
points, except they would all destructive interfere except at one 
location.  So the physics would be the same.


Consider the paradigmatic two slit experiment.  The pattern you get on 
the screen, which is predicted by the Schroedinger equation, is 
described in your idea of position space by a lot of little bins that 
have different degrees of probability, so if you put a detector there 
you get a certain count rate.  But that pattern on the screen is a 
certain wavelet and if you transformed the Schroedinger equation to 
wavelet space that whole pattern would be just one point in the space 
and it would be the eigenvector of the two slit experiment.


The problem of the preferred basis arises in trying to explain why we 
measure position of needles but not momentum or energy and why we don't 
see superpositions of different needle positions.  That's a question of 
which measurement operator has eigenvectors stable against decoherence.  
Not which basis we express the operator in.  A basis doesn't have to 
consist of the eigenvectors of the mesaurement operator, that's just 
mathematically convenient and independent of the physics.  No matter 
what basis we use to write the operator in, it has the same 

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

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

On 6/17/2018 10:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and another 
color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of light on 
several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment fires its 
neuron.  So it is energy detection.


But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer 
focus point objects to points on the retina.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in 
HEP to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by 
bimetals or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are 
just changing one classical value into another. Temperature is the 
first classical level.


Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in a 
different position basis all of this physics will be very different. 
The classical universe will not look the same at all.


I guess I don't understand your idea of "position basis".  My 
understanding of linear algebra is that any basis that spans the space 
can be used to represent any relation between structures.  Why should 
choosing a different basis make any difference to the physics aside 
from the simplicity of its representation.  It's just a coordinate 
basis in Hilbert space.  Or are you thinking of bases different from 
position, e.g. momentum, energy, live/dead,...


Yes, there does seem to be a degree of miscommunication. I am not think 
of different variables such as energy, momentum, or the like. These are 
not different bases, they are different variables and they inhabit 
different Hilbert spaces. So a change of base in one Hilbert space does 
not take you to another space.


No, what I am considering is the possibility of different bases in a 
single space, such as position space. If you assume an eignevector 
interpretation of a set of basis vectors, then a different basis will 
correspond to the eigenvalues of some different operator. It still acts 
in the same, position, space, so it must be regarded as a position 
operator, but it will have quite different physical properties from the 
usual position operator that we use from classical mechanics, where the 
eigenvectors are delta functions along the real line.


Because this will be a different operator, it will correspond to 
different physics. For instance, if the position eigenvalues are 
superpositions of delta functions, corresponding to superpositions of 
different points, the point interactions of particles that we assume in 
constructing the interaction Hamiltonian will be replaced by some set of 
interactions between superpositions of points. This why I suggest that 
the physics will be different. If the physics is the same under this 
basis change, why is there any question about the preferred basis? The 
point is that a change of basis does not mean that we simply go to 
measure some other variable. I think Schlosshauer makes this mistake, if 
I remember correctly; he seems to suggest that the basis choice is 
between position or energy in most cases. That is just wrong.


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 6/17/2018 10:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and another 
color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of light on 
several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment fires its 
neuron.  So it is energy detection.


But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer 
focus point objects to points on the retina.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in HEP 
to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by bimetals 
or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are 
just changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is the 
first classical level.


Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in a 
different position basis all of this physics will be very different. 
The classical universe will not look the same at all.


I guess I don't understand your idea of "position basis".  My 
understanding of linear algebra is that any basis that spans the space 
can be used to represent any relation between structures.  Why should 
choosing a different basis make any difference to the physics aside from 
the simplicity of its representation.  It's just a coordinate basis in 
Hilbert space.  Or are you thinking of bases different from position, 
e.g. momentum, energy, live/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>>


On 6/17/2018 3:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

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


On 6/17/2018 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete 
does not change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous 
set of delta functions on the real line. And generally, when one is 
measuring atomic spectra one determines energies by the deviation 
occasioned by a prism or diffraction grating. In other words, one 
actually measures a position on a screen, or a wavelength, which is 
also a position measurement.


Yes, it's interesting to consider what measurements are /not/ 
position measurements.  We can distinguish colors, so is that a 
direct energy measurment.  And we have calorimeters.  Is there a 
direct measurement of momentum?


It has been suggested that all measurements ultimately boil down to 
position measurements.  Colour vision is the result of distinct 
receptors in the retina that are at different positions, and the 
light from distant objects is focused at different positions by the 
lens in the eye. 


But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and another 
color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of light on 
several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment fires its 
neuron.  So it is energy detection.


But if you use a different position basis the lens will no longer focus 
point objects to points on the retina.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in HEP 
to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by bimetals 
or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are 
just changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is the 
first classical level.


Fair enough. I suppose I am just very conscious of the fact that in a 
different position basis all of this physics will be very different. The 
classical universe will not look the same at all.


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 6/17/2018 3:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 6/17/2018 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete does 
not change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous set of 
delta functions on the real line. And generally, when one is 
measuring atomic spectra one determines energies by the deviation 
occasioned by a prism or diffraction grating. In other words, one 
actually measures a position on a screen, or a wavelength, which is 
also a position measurement.


Yes, it's interesting to consider what measurements are /not/ 
position measurements.  We can distinguish colors, so is that a 
direct energy measurment.  And we have calorimeters.  Is there a 
direct measurement of momentum?


It has been suggested that all measurements ultimately boil down to 
position measurements.  Colour vision is the result of distinct 
receptors in the retina that are at different positions, and the light 
from distant objects is focused at different positions by the lens in 
the eye. 


But the lens doesn't send one color to one photoreceptor and another 
color to a different photorecptor.  It focuses a spot of light on 
several photorecptors and the one with the right pigment fires its 
neuron.  So it is energy detection.


I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used in HEP 
to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by bimetals 
or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way. 


Most work by measuring a voltage.  But you miss the point.  Those 
position measurements are not essential in the QM sense.  They are just 
changing one classical value into another.  Temperature is the first 
classical level.


Brent


I don't know of any direct, non-position-dependent, measure of momentum.

It is an interesting question, but somewhat beside the point of 
determining why our current classical perceptions of position 
correspond to the stable quantum eigenvalues -- an evolutionary 
explanation might explain the correspondence, but not why classical 
position is the way it is.


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

[Bruce Kellett]

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


On 6/17/2018 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete does 
not change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous set of 
delta functions on the real line. And generally, when one is 
measuring atomic spectra one determines energies by the deviation 
occasioned by a prism or diffraction grating. In other words, one 
actually measures a position on a screen, or a wavelength, which is 
also a position measurement.


Yes, it's interesting to consider what measurements are /not/ position 
measurements.  We can distinguish colors, so is that a direct energy 
measurment.  And we have calorimeters.  Is there a direct measurement 
of momentum?


It has been suggested that all measurements ultimately boil down to 
position measurements.  Colour vision is the result of distinct 
receptors in the retina that are at different positions, and the light 
from distant objects is focused at different positions by the lens in 
the eye. I don't know enough about the physics of calorimeters as used 
in HEP to comment here. But if temperature changes are measured by 
bimetals or strain gauges, position comes into it in an essential way. I 
don't know of any direct, non-position-dependent, measure of momentum.


It is an interesting question, but somewhat beside the point of 
determining why our current classical perceptions of position correspond 
to the stable quantum eigenvalues -- an evolutionary explanation might 
explain the correspondence, but not why classical position is the way it is.


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 6/17/2018 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Lawrence Crowell* >


On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:


On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in
discrete eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between.
With spin for instance it occurs in any direction and is
determined by the orientation of a magnetic field I set. I do
not tune some variable to get the energy spectrum of an atom.
There is something odd about energy in both quantum mechanics
and relativity.


But the energy of photons is a continuum.

Brent



I am not sure that changes the argument.  Photons are often emitted 
by systems with discrete energy levels or resonance scattering peaks.


Of course it makes a difference! I am amazed at the depth of the 
confusion that seems to surround something as fundamental as 
einselection of a preferred basis.


The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete does 
not change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous set of 
delta functions on the real line. And generally, when one is measuring 
atomic spectra one determines energies by the deviation occasioned by 
a prism or diffraction grating. In other words, one actually measures 
a position on a screen, or a wavelength, which is also a position 
measurement.


Yes, it's interesting to consider what measurements are /not/ position 
measurements.  We can distinguish colors, so is that a direct energy 
measurment.  And we have calorimeters.  Is there a direct measurement of 
momentum?


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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:05:58 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
>
>
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>> I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in discrete 
>> eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With spin for instance 
>> it occurs in any direction and is determined by the orientation of a 
>> magnetic field I set. I do not tune some variable to get the energy 
>> spectrum of an atom. There is something odd about energy in both quantum 
>> mechanics and relativity. 
>>
>>
>> But the energy of photons is a continuum.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> I am not sure that changes the argument.  Photons are often emitted by 
> systems with discrete energy levels or resonance scattering peaks.
>
>
> Of course it makes a difference! I am amazed at the depth of the confusion 
> that seems to surround something as fundamental as einselection of a 
> preferred basis.
>
> The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete does not 
> change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous set of delta 
> functions on the real line. And generally, when one is measuring atomic 
> spectra one determines energies by the deviation occasioned by a prism or 
> diffraction grating. In other words, one actually measures a position on a 
> screen, or a wavelength, which is also a position measurement.
>
> Bruce
>

You are in a way saying what I am saying. The energy eigenvalue is peaked 
on the real number line. We do not have a time basis in QM; there is no 
time operator. We have a Heisenberg uncertainty with respect to energy and 
time,  ΔEΔt ≥ ħ, but we do not have a case where we can put the basis of a 
system into a mixed |E> + e^{iφ}|t> basis because there is no |t> basis at 
all. 

The connection observables have to position and momentum was one motivation 
for the Wigner quasiprobability distribution. The measurement of a system 
can involve the operator V = κpq that will squeeze the vacuum into the 
position representation. The Wigner function results in squeezed coherent 
states in a similar fashion. 

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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Lawrence Crowell* >


On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:


On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in
discrete eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With
spin for instance it occurs in any direction and is determined by
the orientation of a magnetic field I set. I do not tune some
variable to get the energy spectrum of an atom. There is
something odd about energy in both quantum mechanics and relativity.


But the energy of photons is a continuum.

Brent



I am not sure that changes the argument. Photons are often emitted by 
systems with discrete energy levels or resonance scattering peaks.


Of course it makes a difference! I am amazed at the depth of the 
confusion that seems to surround something as fundamental as 
einselection of a preferred basis.


The fact that energy spectra of atoms and the like are discrete does not 
change the fact that energy eigenvalues are a continuous set of delta 
functions on the real line. And generally, when one is measuring atomic 
spectra one determines energies by the deviation occasioned by a prism 
or diffraction grating. In other words, one actually measures a position 
on a screen, or a wavelength, which is also a position measurement.


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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM,  wrote:

​>>​
>> If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye
>> then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made
>> up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010,
>> it was both vibrating and not vibrating.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
>>
>
> *​>​If you go back to some of my earlier comments, I explicitly stated
> that there is a small class of macro objects that CAN be put in
> superpositions,*
>

That class is NOT small because something is always entangled with
something; you should look at the "Wigner's Friend" thought experiment.
When I open the box I become entangled with Schrodinger's Cat and know  if
it is alive or dead (Everett would say I now know it is alive AND dead) but
you are in another room behind a closed door so you are not entangled with
me and still don’t know what the cat’s fate is. When you open the door and
hear me report on the status of the cat you become entangled with me and
because I’m entangled with the cat now so are you.

​>* ​*
> *In the experiment described in your link, the interference effect of the
> superposition required cooling the object to nearly absolute zero, 0.5 deg
> K.*
>

​​Making things cold decreases the ability of objects to become entangled
it does not increase it. At room temperature so many things become
entangled from so many different pathways and they do it so quickly that
experiments become impractical. The colder things get the more control you
have and the easier it is to figure out what’s going on. For the
experimenter the hard part is not getting things to become entangled but to
reduce the number of entanglements to a reasonable number so it can be
studied.

​> *​*
> *We need to carefully revisit the issue of superposition and what it
> implies for quantum effects to be manifested, before we can conclude
> anything firm about the experiment you cite.*
>

​​
Physicists have been thinking about this for 90 years and there is still no
consensus, the only thing they agree on is there is no quantum
interpretation that is consistent with both the experimental facts and our
intuitive feeling about everyday reality. Something weird is definitely
going on.

​ John K Clark​

-- 
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 Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
> I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in discrete 
> eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With spin for instance 
> it occurs in any direction and is determined by the orientation of a 
> magnetic field I set. I do not tune some variable to get the energy 
> spectrum of an atom. There is something odd about energy in both quantum 
> mechanics and relativity. 
>
>
> But the energy of photons is a continuum.
>
> Brent
>


I am not sure that changes the argument.  Photons are often emitted by 
systems with discrete energy levels or resonance scattering peaks.

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 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in discrete 
eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With spin for 
instance it occurs in any direction and is determined by the 
orientation of a magnetic field I set. I do not tune some variable to 
get the energy spectrum of an atom. There is something odd about 
energy in both quantum mechanics and relativity.


But the energy of photons is a continuum.

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 Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
> ​> *​*
>> *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro 
>> objects *
>
>
> If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye 
> then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made 
> up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010, 
> it was both vibrating and not vibrating.   
>
> https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
>

If you go back to some of my earlier comments, I explicitly stated that 
there is a small class of macro objects that CAN be put in superpositions, 
e.g., billiard balls and Buckyballs -- any macro object that can be 
isolated from its environment, since those objects have well defined 
deBroglie wave lengths and are therefore able to manifest interference 
effects. In the case of Buckyballs, IIUC, they manifested interference when 
very cold, but the interference disappeared when they were heated, at which 
point they got entangled with their environment. In the experiment 
described in your link, the interference effect of the superposition 
required cooling the object to nearly absolute zero, 0.5 deg K. As Bruce 
pointed out on the Entanglement thread, one doesn't need isolation for a 
superposition of states to exist, but I think it's a necessary condition 
for a macro object to manifest quantum properties. However, I admit some 
confusion on this issue. Since by virtue of the properties of linear 
algebra,  a NON isolated system can be put in a superposition, such as S's 
cat, but still the cat is in both states simultaneously (alive, undecayed) 
and (dead, decayed), just as when A = B + C where A, B, C are vectors in 
linear vector space, and A can be interpreted as manifesting the properties 
of B and C simultaneously, since it is the sum of B and C. AG

>
> *​>**I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in 
>> 2004 in remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s 
>> Varying Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics".  For me the "tell" that it 
>> can't be right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously 
>> noted) is the fact that it implies copies of worlds.*
>>
>
> ​
> OK now I understand why you think Everett was wrong, you just ignore 
> evidence indicating that he was right. As for me I don't start out with a
> ​n​
> ​axiom​
>  that fundamental reality can't be odd, so if experiment indicates that 
> things are odd then I figure things are odd. 
> ​And no quantum interpretation will make things not be odd.
>

We need to carefully revisit the issue of superposition and what it implies 
for quantum effects to be manifested, before we can conclude anything firm 
about the experiment you cite. AG 

>
> John K Clark​
>
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM,  wrote:

​> *​*
> *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro
> objects *


If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye
then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made
up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010,
it was both vibrating and not vibrating.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

*​>**I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in
> 2004 in remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s
> Varying Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics".  For me the "tell" that it
> can't be right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously
> noted) is the fact that it implies copies of worlds.*
>

​
OK now I understand why you think Everett was wrong, you just ignore
evidence indicating that he was right. As for me I don't start out with a
​n​
​axiom​
 that fundamental reality can't be odd, so if experiment indicates that
things are odd then I figure things are odd.
​And no quantum interpretation will make things not be odd.

John K Clark​

-- 
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 Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:32:19 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:29:50 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: Lawrence Crowell 
>>
>> I can't make a measurement of energy that is something other than the 
>> eigenstates or the diagonal form of the Hamiltonian. Energy is the physical 
>> quantity which defines the einselected basis that is stable in a 
>> classical-(like) outcome or for the emergence of classicality.
>>
>>
>> That is incorrect. If you are making a position measurement, energy does 
>> not come into it. Certainly, for many physical system, such as atoms and 
>> molecules, the energy eigenstates are what one measures. But one measures 
>> these in the  preferred energy basis, which is quite similar to the 
>> preferred position basis. We are used to a position basis with eigenstates 
>> as position delta functions along the real line. The preferred energy basis 
>> is similar, energy delta functions along the real line (remember that we 
>> can get any real value as the result of a generic energy measurement. 
>> Energies are quantized only for specific physical systems.)
>>
>>
> I was wondering if you might catch this. I needed more time to reflect on 
> this and left this open. It is true that the position measurement does not 
> involve a kinetic energy E = p^2/2m or E = sqrt(p^2 + m^2) term. Things are 
> not too mysterious with momentum measurements. Is energy completely out of 
> the loop? Remember that potential energy V = V(x) in most cases. So in the 
> double slit experiment what happens? The photon or electron wave reaches 
> the screen and interacts with it. This interaction is going to be position 
> dependent and I would argue this potential energy is much larger than the 
> kinetic energy V(x) >> p^2/2m, and so in a decent approximation E = E(x). 
> Again, this is not the energy of the free particle, but what happens with 
> the particle interaction with the screen.
>
> There can be more. In particular if the interaction is of the form V = 
> ipx, constants ignored. Since px = i/4[(a^†)^2 - a^2 + ħ] this is a 
> parametric amplification operator and it squeezes the state into the 
> position basis. 
>
> As a result I still think, though have not worked through anything, that 
> energy is somehow deeply involved with the einselection of states and the 
> emergence of a large scale classical world. As for below it is not the case 
> that we make spectral measurements of atoms or other systems that are in a 
> basis other than the diagonalization basis for the eigenvalues measured.
>
>
> I don't know why you think that energy is central to einselection.  The 
> idea is that the einselected basis vectors correspond to an operator that 
> commutes with the interaction Hamiltonian. But that is just the interaction 
> Hamiltonian, not the full Hamiltonian which could be seen as the energy 
> operator. So this criterion applies independently for any measured 
> quantity, be it position, momentum, energy, or anything else. These 
> einselected bases are not related in any other way. As I have pointed out, 
> this criterion does not, of itself, tell us what the einselected basis is 
> -- we have to go to something else for this.
>
> Bruce
>

I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in discrete 
eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With spin for instance 
it occurs in any direction and is determined by the orientation of a 
magnetic field I set. I do not tune some variable to get the energy 
spectrum of an atom. There is something odd about energy in both quantum 
mechanics and relativity. 

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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Lawrence Crowell* >



On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:29:50 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

From: *Lawrence Crowell* 

I can't make a measurement of energy that is something other than
the eigenstates or the diagonal form of the Hamiltonian. Energy
is the physical quantity which defines the einselected basis that
is stable in a classical-(like) outcome or for the emergence of
classicality.


That is incorrect. If you are making a position measurement,
energy does not come into it. Certainly, for many physical system,
such as atoms and molecules, the energy eigenstates are what one
measures. But one measures these in the  preferred energy basis,
which is quite similar to the preferred position basis. We are
used to a position basis with eigenstates as position delta
functions along the real line. The preferred energy basis is
similar, energy delta functions along the real line (remember that
we can get any real value as the result of a generic energy
measurement. Energies are quantized only for specific physical
systems.)


I was wondering if you might catch this. I needed more time to reflect 
on this and left this open. It is true that the position measurement 
does not involve a kinetic energy E = p^2/2m or E = sqrt(p^2 + m^2) 
term. Things are not too mysterious with momentum measurements. Is 
energy completely out of the loop? Remember that potential energy V = 
V(x) in most cases. So in the double slit experiment what happens? The 
photon or electron wave reaches the screen and interacts with it. This 
interaction is going to be position dependent and I would argue this 
potential energy is much larger than the kinetic energy V(x) >> 
p^2/2m, and so in a decent approximation E = E(x). Again, this is not 
the energy of the free particle, but what happens with the particle 
interaction with the screen.


There can be more. In particular if the interaction is of the form V = 
ipx, constants ignored. Since px = i/4[(a^†)^2 - a^2 + ħ] this is a 
parametric amplification operator and it squeezes the state into the 
position basis.


As a result I still think, though have not worked through anything, 
that energy is somehow deeply involved with the einselection of states 
and the emergence of a large scale classical world. As for below it is 
not the case that we make spectral measurements of atoms or other 
systems that are in a basis other than the diagonalization basis for 
the eigenvalues measured.


I don't know why you think that energy is central to einselection. The 
idea is that the einselected basis vectors correspond to an operator 
that commutes with the interaction Hamiltonian. But that is just the 
interaction Hamiltonian, not the full Hamiltonian which could be seen as 
the energy operator. So this criterion applies independently for any 
measured quantity, be it position, momentum, energy, or anything else. 
These einselected bases are not related in any other way. As I have 
pointed out, this criterion does not, of itself, tell us what the 
einselected basis is -- we have to go to something else for this.


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 Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:29:50 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
>
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:18:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: Brent Meeker 
>>
>>
>> No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots on 
>> the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to the basis 
>> vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in different places on the 
>> screen.  But in each world there are different (not necessarily position) 
>> bases, but they describe the same physics.
>>
>>
>> I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as the 
>> eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the interaction 
>> Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the Hilbert space, even by 
>> a simple rotation of your present basis, you are going to get eigenvectors 
>> (and eigenvalues) of a different operator. Since this operator must also be 
>> dominant in the interaction Hamiltonian, the physics is necessarily going 
>> to be different. A different position basis is going to result in more than 
>> different places on the screen for the spots.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> I would agree, and that you are invoking the Hamiltonian segues into what 
> I wrote yesterday. I can set an apparatus to measure the spin of an 
> electron in any orientation.
>
>
> That is true; but that is just making a choice about what to measure -- 
> equivalent to the choice of whether to measure the position or momentum of 
> a free particle. These measurements are mutually exclusive, but they do not 
> set the measurement basis. When you use a S-G magnet to measure the spin 
> projection of a spin-half particle you chose an orientation, but the actual 
> measurement that gives you the required result is a position measurement -- 
> whether the particle emerges in the up or down channel. That is why this 
> was originally referred to as "space quantization".
>
> I can't make a measurement of energy that is something other than the 
> eigenstates or the diagonal form of the Hamiltonian. Energy is the physical 
> quantity which defines the einselected basis that is stable in a 
> classical-(like) outcome or for the emergence of classicality.
>
>
> That is incorrect. If you are making a position measurement, energy does 
> not come into it. Certainly, for many physical system, such as atoms and 
> molecules, the energy eigenstates are what one measures. But one measures 
> these in the  preferred energy basis, which is quite similar to the 
> preferred position basis. We are used to a position basis with eigenstates 
> as position delta functions along the real line. The preferred energy basis 
> is similar, energy delta functions along the real line (remember that we 
> can get any real value as the result of a generic energy measurement. 
> Energies are quantized only for specific physical systems.)
>
>
I was wondering if you might catch this. I needed more time to reflect on 
this and left this open. It is true that the position measurement does not 
involve a kinetic energy E = p^2/2m or E = sqrt(p^2 + m^2) term. Things are 
not too mysterious with momentum measurements. Is energy completely out of 
the loop? Remember that potential energy V = V(x) in most cases. So in the 
double slit experiment what happens? The photon or electron wave reaches 
the screen and interacts with it. This interaction is going to be position 
dependent and I would argue this potential energy is much larger than the 
kinetic energy V(x) >> p^2/2m, and so in a decent approximation E = E(x). 
Again, this is not the energy of the free particle, but what happens with 
the particle interaction with the screen.

There can be more. In particular if the interaction is of the form V = ipx, 
constants ignored. Since px = i/4[(a^†)^2 - a^2 + ħ] this is a parametric 
amplification operator and it squeezes the state into the position basis. 

As a result I still think, though have not worked through anything, that 
energy is somehow deeply involved with the einselection of states and the 
emergence of a large scale classical world. As for below it is not the case 
that we make spectral measurements of atoms or other systems that are in a 
basis other than the diagonalization basis for the eigenvalues measured.

LC
 

> I think people get trapped into thinking that our usual delta-function 
> basis for either position or energy is the only possible basis, because 
> that is the only basis in which we are able to measure anything. But that 
> itself is just a consequence of einselection to a preferred basis -- 
> attempting to measure in some other basis is not a position or energy 
> measurement as we know it, and the eigenfunctions of the alternative 
> operators decohere into our known basis extremely rapidly. But the fact 
> that the usual basis is ubiquitous, made so by decoherence, does not 
> explain why it is that basis, rather than some other basis, which is stable 
> against decoherence. 

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Lawrence Crowell* >

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:18:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's
spots on the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are
orthogonal to the basis vectors of the "worlds" in which the
spots are in different places on the screen.  But in each world
there are different (not necessarily position) bases, but they
describe the same physics.


I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as
the eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the
interaction Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the
Hilbert space, even by a simple rotation of your present basis,
you are going to get eigenvectors (and eigenvalues) of a different
operator. Since this operator must also be dominant in the
interaction Hamiltonian, the physics is necessarily going to be
different. A different position basis is going to result in more
than different places on the screen for the spots.

Bruce


I would agree, and that you are invoking the Hamiltonian segues into 
what I wrote yesterday. I can set an apparatus to measure the spin of 
an electron in any orientation.


That is true; but that is just making a choice about what to measure -- 
equivalent to the choice of whether to measure the position or momentum 
of a free particle. These measurements are mutually exclusive, but they 
do not set the measurement basis. When you use a S-G magnet to measure 
the spin projection of a spin-half particle you chose an orientation, 
but the actual measurement that gives you the required result is a 
position measurement -- whether the particle emerges in the up or down 
channel. That is why this was originally referred to as "space 
quantization".


I can't make a measurement of energy that is something other than the 
eigenstates or the diagonal form of the Hamiltonian. Energy is the 
physical quantity which defines the einselected basis that is stable 
in a classical-(like) outcome or for the emergence of classicality.


That is incorrect. If you are making a position measurement, energy does 
not come into it. Certainly, for many physical system, such as atoms and 
molecules, the energy eigenstates are what one measures. But one 
measures these in the  preferred energy basis, which is quite similar to 
the preferred position basis. We are used to a position basis with 
eigenstates as position delta functions along the real line. The 
preferred energy basis is similar, energy delta functions along the real 
line (remember that we can get any real value as the result of a generic 
energy measurement. Energies are quantized only for specific physical 
systems.)


I think people get trapped into thinking that our usual delta-function 
basis for either position or energy is the only possible basis, because 
that is the only basis in which we are able to measure anything. But 
that itself is just a consequence of einselection to a preferred basis 
-- attempting to measure in some other basis is not a position or energy 
measurement as we know it, and the eigenfunctions of the alternative 
operators decohere into our known basis extremely rapidly. But the fact 
that the usual basis is ubiquitous, made so by decoherence, does not 
explain why it is that basis, rather than some other basis, which is 
stable against decoherence. We could easily choose another basis, and as 
I pointed out to Brent, the split into separate branches on the MWI 
would be very different in a different basis. Eigenfunctions and 
probabilities would be different with a different basis, so the physics 
would be different. The real question is "Why is physics the way it is? 
It could easily have been different."


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 Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:18:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker < meek...@verizon.net >
>
> On 6/13/2018 3:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker > 
>
> On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker < meek...@verizon.net >
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 8:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker < meek...@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. 
>
>
> I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
> consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on the 
> screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier components, but it 
> will still be a spot in that representation.  And the Schroedinger eqn 
> solution for the interference pattern on the screen will also be a 
> superposition of Fourier components.
>
>
> So you are saying that there is no preferred basis problem? What do you 
> think the problem is?
>
>
> No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots on the 
> screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to the basis 
> vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in different places on the 
> screen.  But in each world there are different (not necessarily position) 
> bases, but they describe the same physics.
>
>
> I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as the 
> eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the interaction 
> Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the Hilbert space, even by 
> a simple rotation of your present basis, you are going to get eigenvectors 
> (and eigenvalues) of a different operator. Since this operator must also be 
> dominant in the interaction Hamiltonian, the physics is necessarily going 
> to be different. A different position basis is going to result in more than 
> different places on the screen for the spots.
>
> Bruce
>

I would agree, and that you are invoking the Hamiltonian segues into what I 
wrote yesterday. I can set an apparatus to measure the spin of an electron 
in any orientation. I can't make a measurement of energy that is something 
other than the eigenstates or the diagonal form of the Hamiltonian. Energy 
is the physical quantity which defines the einselected basis that is stable 
in a classical-(like) outcome or for the emergence of classicality.

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

[Bruce Kellett]

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

On 6/13/2018 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

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



No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots 
on the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to 
the basis vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in 
different places on the screen. But in each world there are 
different (not necessarily position) bases, but they describe the 
same physics.


I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as the 
eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the interaction 
Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the Hilbert space, 
even by a simple rotation of your present basis, you are going to get 
eigenvectors (and eigenvalues) of a different operator. Since this 
operator must also be dominant in the interaction Hamiltonian, the 
physics is necessarily going to be different. A different position 
basis is going to result in more than different places on the screen 
for the spots.


But what about my example of taking the Hilbert space of Fourier 
components of the distribution of spots on the screen?  It doesn't 
have delta functions as the basis vectors, but it spans the same 
physical results.


How do you know that this gives the same physical results? The position 
operator is different, so the interaction Hamiltonian is no longer given 
by interactions between point particles, obeying a separation force law 
depending on the distance. If you are right and the physics is unchanged 
by a basis change, then there is no preferred basis problem because all 
bases would give the same physics. But that is manifestly false. Just 
consider the expansion of some state in two different bases for the same 
measurement space (different operators, mind):


 }psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i> = Sum_j d_j |b_j>.

the c_i =/= d_j in general. So the worlds are split into different 
branches, with different weights, depending on which basis is chosen. 
This does not seem like the same physics to me.


Sure, it is the same initial vector, so we can related the bases by a 
simple linear transformation. But decoherence will operate on different 
sets of states in the two cases; the branching worlds will be different. 
So there is no way this could be said to represent the same physics in 
general.


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 6/13/2018 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 

On 6/13/2018 3:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >

On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *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?


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. 


I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on 
the screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier 
components, but it will still be a spot in that representation. And 
the Schroedinger eqn solution for the interference pattern on the 
screen will also be a superposition of Fourier components.


So you are saying that there is no preferred basis problem? What do 
you think the problem is?


No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots 
on the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to 
the basis vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in different 
places on the screen.  But in each world there are different (not 
necessarily position) bases, but they describe the same physics.


I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as the 
eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the interaction 
Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the Hilbert space, 
even by a simple rotation of your present basis, you are going to get 
eigenvectors (and eigenvalues) of a different operator. Since this 
operator must also be dominant in the interaction Hamiltonian, the 
physics is necessarily going to be different. A different position 
basis is going to result in more than different places on the screen 
for the spots.


But what about my example of taking the Hilbert space of Fourier 
components of the distribution of spots on the screen?  It doesn't have 
delta functions as the basis vectors, but it spans the same physical 
results.


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 6/13/2018 3:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >

On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *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?


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. 


I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on 
the screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier 
components, but it will still be a spot in that representation.  And 
the Schroedinger eqn solution for the interference pattern on the 
screen will also be a superposition of Fourier components.


So you are saying that there is no preferred basis problem? What do 
you think the problem is?


No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots on 
the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to the 
basis vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in different 
places on the screen.  But in each world there are different (not 
necessarily position) bases, but they describe the same physics.


I don't think that is correct. The preferred basis is selected as the 
eigenvectors of the operator that commutes with the interaction 
Hamiltonian. If you choose a different basis for the Hilbert space, even 
by a simple rotation of your present basis, you are going to get 
eigenvectors (and eigenvalues) of a different operator. Since this 
operator must also be dominant in the interaction Hamiltonian, the 
physics is necessarily going to be different. A different position basis 
is going to result in more than different places on the screen for the 
spots.


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 6/13/2018 3:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 

On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *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?


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. 


I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on the 
screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier components, 
but it will still be a spot in that representation.  And the 
Schroedinger eqn solution for the interference pattern on the screen 
will also be a superposition of Fourier components.


So you are saying that there is no preferred basis problem? What do 
you think the problem is?


No.  There's a preferred basis in which this "world" and it's spots on 
the screen, is spanned by basis vectors which are orthogonal to the 
basis vectors of the "worlds" in which the spots are in different places 
on the screen.  But in each world there are different (not necessarily 
position) bases, but they describe the same physics.


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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:16:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> 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
>

This is an ill-formed idea I will admit. The thought is that something such 
as the spin basis is selected by the orientation of an apparatus or 
magnetic field imposed on the system. The energy basis seems a bit 
different in that for energy of atomic spectra this is einselected more by 
the system measured. I can choose the basis for spin as anything with 4π 
steradians, but have less freedom with respect to energy.eigenvalues. 
 Momentum and position are proper conjugate variables, but there is no such 
thing as a time operator. A quantum time operator would imply time is a 
generator of energy and this can be continuous and unbounded below. That is 
trouble. Of course there are AdS and Taub-NUT spacetimes where this might 
happen, but ...  for later. 

Energy is a bit odd in both relativity and quantum mechanics. I maintain it 
is the basis which has some natural einselection process when the number of 
Planck units S = Nħ is large. I seems possible the other quantum 
observables are only stabilized as a classical outcome when there is some 
outside action by a classical-like system or one with a large number of 
states or S = Nħ is large. 

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

[Bruce Kellett]

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

On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

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


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?


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. 


I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on the 
screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier components, 
but it will still be a spot in that representation.  And the 
Schroedinger eqn solution for the interference pattern on the screen 
will also be a superposition of Fourier components.


So you are saying that there is no preferred basis problem? What do you 
think the problem is?


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.
>

*Where do you draw the line? Is there any conclusion you would find absurd? 
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.
>

*OK. but this is where I may be confused. If the component states of a 
superposition are orthogonal, won't there still be interference between 
them due to Born's Rule? Isn't this what distinguishes classical from 
quantum probability, how the cross terms are manifested to yield quantum 
probabilities? TIA, 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 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *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?


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. 


I don't see that.  Suppose I did a Fourier transform of the basis 
consisting little bins across the screen. The indeed each spot on the 
screen will be represented by a superposition of Fourier components, but 
it will still be a spot in that representation.  And the Schroedinger 
eqn solution for the interference pattern on the screen will also be a 
superposition of Fourier components.


Brent

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.


--
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 3:50:50 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 

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 

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 

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.

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 11:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>
 
 On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
 From: < <>agrays...@gmail.com >
> 
> 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.

I am sad to hear this. Rest in Peace Zeh. 

Thanks for telling me Bruce,

Bruno


> 
> 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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


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


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

--
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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>
>> 
>> 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. 

Bruno





> 
> 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

[agrayson2000]

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*

-- 
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 1:41:11 AM UTC, Bruce 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.
>
> Bruce
>

*I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in 2004 in 
remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s Varying 
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics".  For me the "tell" that it can't be 
right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously noted) is 
the fact that it implies copies of worlds. 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 Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 
>

If you read my introduction carefully, you will note that I implicitly 
limited my claim. I assert that decoherence theory cannot apply to macro 
systems for which a definable deBroglie wave length does not exist. It 
could be valid for a tiny class of macro objects such as Buckyballs. 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 Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 
>

If you read my introduction, I am implicitly denying that decoherence 
theory can be valid for macro objects for which no definable deBroglie wave 
length exists. So it may have been verified for a limited class of macro 
objects such as Buckyballs. 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

[Bruce Kellett]

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


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.


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 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 

-- 
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>>



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


--
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.