> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 10^{-22}seconds.
> The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus occurs in that time
> before decoherence.
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with its
> environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does
> that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical and
> IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these sort
> of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons through beam
> splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest.
> At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very
> difficult. At intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons
> and mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things become
> impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for constructing
> operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the light cone so
> nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. Such physics is
> relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>
> I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states
> when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed simultaneously.
> If we go back to the vector space consisting of those "little pointing
> things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of other vectors,
> simultaneously shares the properties of the components in its sum. This is
> simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a Hilbert space is a
> linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a natural
> interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to one
> of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that
> as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, or
> decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG.
It is not for short time, it is forever. You are just postulating that QM is
wrong, which is indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest.
An excellent book both on QM, interpretation and quantum logic is the book by
Bub. I am rereading it.
Now, the MW is not so extravagant when you put it in the Mechanist frame.
Indeed, it is expected once you believe that Diophantine equations have
solutions. All computations or histories exist, with relative probabilities
structured by the constraints of relative self-correctness. From that view, it
is the uniqueness of the physical universe which seems extravagant, I would say.
Bruno
>
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed -
> undecayed? TIA, 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
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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.
