On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never
Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Sure it is. It's in a coherent superposition of those states
until it interacts with the environment.
Brent
That's the conventional QM wisdom and the cause of the paradox of
a cat Alive and Dead simultaneously. As I explained, the fallacy
is rooted in an unjustified generalization of the double slit
experiment where the probability waves do, in fact, exist
simultaneously. What waves do you claim are interacting for the
radioactive nucleus to produce coherence? Tell me about them. I am
from Missouri. AG
You seem to think that coherence requires two different waves.
This is the wrong way to look at it. In Young's slits experiment
there is only one wave, which goes through both slits and
interferes with itself.
That's exactly how I see it! Interference requires two waves which
interact with each other.
NO. This is false! There are not two waves. You can write it as
two parts, just as you can write a description of an ocean wave as
the part on your left and the part on your right. But so long as
they are coherent, maintaining a fixed phase relation, they are one
wave.
You're splitting hairs, engaging in sophism. For the single wave
going through both slits, Feynman calculates the norm squared of | A
+ B |, where A and B denote the waveS going through left and right
slits respectively. Both are obviously identical, with the result of
coherent interference. From this analysis we get the interpretation
that the the system is simultaneously in all states of a
superposition. AG
Noteworthy is that fact that if you reference "coherence" on Wiki,
the description always invokes multiple waves of the same frequency.
If you want to assert coherence without multiple waves, and NOT
using the double slit result, you have some heavy lifting to do. AG
This is exactly what we see in Young's slits experiments. AG
And unstable nucleus has a probability amplitude that includes a
"decayed" part and a "not decayed" part. It's a tunneling problem.
I don't doubt the existence of amplitudes. What I do doubt. and in
fact deny, is interference between two waves that don't exist
simultaneously.
You keep referring to two waves. There are not two waves. There's
only one wave which interferes with itself. It is typically written
as |not-decayed> + |decayed>, but that's just a choice of basis. It
could as well be written |unstable nucleus>.
OK, unstable nucleus. Makes no difference to what I am arguing;
namely, that coherence requires more than one wave, simultaneously,
which is what double slit slows, even though the experiment
obviously starts out with one wave. AG
If there's no interference, then the cat cannot be Alive and Dead
simultaneously. Tunneling can exist, but still, no simultaneous
interacting, interfering waves. Is there any advantage to believing
in two waves which don't exist simultaneous, can interfere with
each other? AG
You are confused.
You're the one with a cat which Alive and Dead simultaneously for
the very short time until decoherence occurs. So it is arguable who
is really confused. AG
I agree with Brent. It is elementary quantum mechanics. Then the
decoherence is only in the mind of those looking at the cat, as
explained entirely by the formalism itself (although there is a
technical debate on the question of the derivation of the Born Rule,
but for me that problem has been solved a very long time ago by
Paulette Février-Destouches, and simple (non rigorous) proof exists in
Preskill's course on quantum computation, or in Selestnick's book
"Quanta, Logic and Space-Time"), and personally, I think this is
solved completely by Gleason theorem.
Then, I already knew, before knewing QM, that infinitely many cats
live in arithmetic, and that the statistics of the observable, in
arithmetic from inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism
making sense in cognitive science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at
all: it has to be like that. Eventually, the "negative amplitude of
probability" comes from the self-referential constraints (the logic of
[]p & <>p on p sigma_1, for those who have studied a little bit).
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
