> On 8 Nov 2019, at 05:06, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> There is no paradox. It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't be >>> dead and alive at the same time. It's as though your physics was stuck in >>> the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies >>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic. >>> >>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum >>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat >>> to less than a several seconds. It would be simply meaningless to say the >>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same >>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought >>> experiment was to demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's >>> something wrong with the prevailing interpretation of superposition. In >>> your view I am hung up with Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some >>> quantum nonsense. AG >> >> Prevailing when? 1927? There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 >> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be >> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a >> nano-second...because...WHY? The radioactive atom can be in a >> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond. Why doesn't that >> violate your Aristotelean logic? >> >> Brent >> >> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either >> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG > > Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed assumes the > superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by interaction with the > environment. The interactions that produce decoherence all proceed at less > than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous. So the atom and the cat > are no different...except the time for which one can keep them isolated from > the environment. > > Brent > > Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That would > put this issue to bed. AG
Then a photon will go only through one slit, and we are back to classical mechanics, or QM + hidden variable (and FTL), etc. We need the superposition to explain the interference patterns. Bruno > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f787705-1ff3-427d-a6f1-085b9baa3e5e%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f787705-1ff3-427d-a6f1-085b9baa3e5e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1CC026FE-A96B-4D5E-8A5D-BBCA9122DBE5%40ulb.ac.be.
