subject:"C60 Interference"


> On 14 Nov 2019, at 08:46, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics
> Richard P. Feynman
> 1951
> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf 
> 
> 
> Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory
> Henry Wilkes
> September 28, 2018
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
> virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual  
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose.
> 
> But this is more like the interpretation of probabilities as propensities.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probability 
>  :
> 
> Propensities are not relative frequencies, but purported causes of the 
> observed stable relative frequencies. 
> 
> In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, the 
> idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of single-case 
> probability attributions in quantum mechanics 
> , such as the probability of 
> decay  of a particular atom 
>  at a particular time.
> 
> 
> Sum over histories is also sum over possibilities - each possibility has a 
> propensity.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> The statistical interpretation could also fit the frequentist interpretation 
> of probability. Truthfully, it's not clear what propensity means; sounds 
> related to preferred bases, concerning which I have grave doubts. AG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose you have the following product installed on your computer:
> 
> 
> https://www.idquantique.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Quantis-RNG-Products-500-x-400.png
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Quantis Random Number Generator
> https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/
> 
> Suppose you write a program that uses Quantis and it outputs
> 
> 01101   (with probability 1/32)
> 
> to the screen you are looking at.
> 
> Do you think:
> 
> A. There are 32 worlds that now exist and you-01101 are just in one of them, 
> but there are 31 other you-s out there?

Just saying that the output is “01101” is ambiguous. If that comes from a mixed 
state, the 31 others do not exist. If it was coming from the tensor product of 
5 superpositions (each one with a factor 1/sqrt(2)), then the 31 other 
“worlds/histories” are realised.
In that second case, you could have measure your output in another base, and 
distinguish if all bits are equal or not, for example, which means that the 
superposition were there. 

Bruno




> 
> B. You-01101 is the one you that exists (in ine world), and all the possible 
> you-s that are not you-01101 have vanished.
> 
> C. ?
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> 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/b77a9489-d26a-416c-94e9-747cd890ce2d%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/D1B010D3-563C-4827-865C-91B311478757%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference


> On 14 Nov 2019, at 00:03, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
> the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
> states simultaneously? AG 
> 
> None, since it isn't.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
> 
> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill the 
> cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I understand 
> what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed and 
> undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It can "be" possibly-decayed and possibly-undecayed simultaneously.
> 
> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that imply 
> there is no interference? AG 
> 
> I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of the 
> wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the system, 
> and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of the wf, not 
> the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the paradox of the 
> radioactive source being IN two contradictory states simultaneously. OTOH, I 
> seem to recall reading that the statistical (or epistemological)  
> interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly because it denies the 
> existence of interference.  What's your assessment? TIA, AG
> 
> 
> I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the 
> probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for 
> quantum phenomena.
> 
> The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics
> Richard P. Feynman
> 1951
> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf 
> 
> 
> Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory
> Henry Wilkes
> September 28, 2018
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
> virtually solely to ensembles of measurements of identically prepared systems 
> and not to individual systems. Is this limitation the reason it is not 
> generally accepted, as I believe is the case? Anyone can reply. AG

That type of statistical interpretation was common, before it begun to be clear 
that we can obtain interference between a solitary particles and itself (as QM 
predicted). 

To give a rough summary, the choice is between consciousness reduce the wave 
(and thus mind acts on matter, and mind is not described by physics) or the 
observer obeys (quantum physics) in which case you get the MW (Everett).

Now,it is a theorem of Elementary Arithmetic (Peano) that “very elementary 
arithmetic” (Robison) are execute all computational histories, making physics 
into a first person plural statistics on histories, we can say that digital and 
quantum Mechanism corroborate each other quite well, as well as with the 
available facts.

The idea that consciousness reduces the Q-wave has been properly, imo, debunked 
by Abner Shimony.

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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70933c22-32a2-4315-87fe-f0bb39876030%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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

Re: C60 Interference


> On 12 Nov 2019, at 22:10, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote:
> On 12-11-2019 01:02, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: 
> >>> 
>  On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal > 
>  wrote: 
>  
> > On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson > 
> > wrote: 
>  
>  On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>  wrote: 
>  
>  Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. 
>  
>  THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG 
> >>> 
> >>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite 
> >> outcome, 
> >>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition 
> >> decoder, 
> >>> that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. 
> >> So, 
> >>> if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost 
> >>> immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the 
> >> cat 
> >>> dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they 
> >> might 
> >>> interfere themselves. 
> >>> 
> >>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to 
> >> deny. 
> >>> 
> >>> Bruce 
> >>> 
> >>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + 
> >> |undecayed>, 
> >>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that 
> >> it's 
> >>> in both states simultaneously? AG 
> >> 
> >> This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay 
> >> happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay 
> >> will 
> >> happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then 
> >> not 
> >> a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which 
> >> one. 
> >> The difference between the two scenarios has in principle 
> >> experimentally 
> >> verifiable consequences.  For example, the Delta++ particle decays 
> >> to a 
> >> proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong 
> >> 
> >> interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by 
> >> applying 
> >> a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to 
> >> the 
> >> superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> 
> >> denotes a 
> >> neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive 
> >> pions. 
> >> Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 
> >> and 
> >> 2/3. 
> >> 
> >> Saibal 
> > 
> > I don't see how this relates to my question. If the relative decay 
> > probabilites 
> > are what you state, does this mean that the system PRIOR to decay is 
> > several different states simultaneously? AG 
> 
> The system will in general be in a superposition, this follows from the 
> Schrodinger equation. The fact that a decay can happen at all means that 
> the particle states are not eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. If you 
> consider a decay in a fixed volume and you impose reflecting boundary 
> conditions, then you won't get a permanent decay at all. The 
> superposition will end up oscillating back and forth from the original 
> particle to the decay products and back. When we compute the decay rate 
> in QM we need to take the limit to an infinite volume to eliminate this 
> oscillation effect and make the long term decay visible. But in 
> principle the superposition between the original undecayed particle and 
> the decay products will always continue to exist. 
> 
> Saibal 
> 
> Thanks, but the issue I am raising is not whether a superposition continues to
> exist, but the proper interpretation of it. For example, can a radioactive 
> source
> be decayed and undecayed simultaneously, or is Philip correct in claiming both
> states are simultaneous possibilties? Huge difference. AG 

It implies that the possibilities, or the propensities, should be able to 
interfere, which is weird all by itself. The fact that it interfere and has 
physical consequences means that those possibilities are actual physical 
events, making dubious to call them “possibilities”. It looks like hiding a 
problem in a change of vocabulary.

Have you bought the little book by David Albert (Quantum Mechanics and 
Experience). Despite I disagree with his concise critics of Everett, and am 
unimpressed by its defence of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory, I find it 
very pedagogical for its explanation of what the measurement problem consists 
in.

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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>

Re: C60 Interference


> On 12 Nov 2019, at 22:06, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
> the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
> states simultaneously? AG 
> 
> None, since it isn't.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
> 
> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill the 
> cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I understand 
> what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed and 
> undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> It can "be" possibly-decayed and possibly-undecayed simultaneously.
> 
> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf.

It seems to me that it is more like Popper’s propensity interpretation. But it 
makes not much sense. If the observer is described by the wave, and obey to 
Mechanism, he will not been able to see the difference between belonging to a 
possibility or an actuality, so Popper need a non computationalist theory of 
mind, which indeed he developed with Eccles, but it is hardly convincing, Imo.

Bruno




> Doesn't that imply there is no 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ffddf8e-ebf2-4191-a32e-5f549691a6e0%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/75E882C6-07DA-4A9A-A5A6-A5981F170E2A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference


> On 11 Nov 2019, at 12:35, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>  
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>> 
>> Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG
> 
> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, and 
> for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that is get 
> entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look at the 
> cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a guy seeing 
> the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained why they cannot 
> interact, although they might interfere themselves.
> 
> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.

I have never denied a preferred basis, as preferred by the evolution of the 
type of observer we are (like molecular biological organism, where position 
plays an important role). What I deny is that the MWI implies that some base 
are more important in physics than other. The universal wave function can be 
described in any base, but the internal observer will “choose” the base 
corresponding to their most useful sensory apparatus. It is a bit like a planet 
and life: there are “preferred planet” having the right conditions for life to 
develop. Similarly, consciousness can only differentiate in the base in which 
Turing universal machine can also differentiate.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRDr5%2Bt%2Bq-YjrjMPc3bEkAdUb6ezYfXahbUuEnTcEsahA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/92D4251D-3F79-48AC-AB88-B0AEEAEB674C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-13 Thread Philip Thrift



On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
 *Richard P. Feynman*
 1951
 http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf

 *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
 Henry Wilkes
 September 28, 2018
 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf


 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities 
>>> refer virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual  
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose.
>>
>> But this is more like the interpretation of probabilities as propensities.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probability :
>>
>> Propensities are not relative frequencies, but purported *causes* of the 
>> observed stable relative frequencies. 
>>
>> In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, 
>> the idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of 
>> *single-case 
>> probability attributions in **quantum mechanics* 
>> , such as the 
>> probability of decay  of 
>> a particular atom  at a particular 
>> time.
>>
>>
>> Sum over histories is also sum over possibilities - each possibility has 
>> a propensity.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> The statistical interpretation could also fit the frequentist 
> interpretation of probability. Truthfully, it's not clear what propensity 
> means; sounds related to preferred bases, concerning which I have grave 
> doubts. AG
>




Suppose you have the following product installed on your computer:


https://www.idquantique.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Quantis-RNG-Products-500-x-400.png


*Quantis Random Number Generator*
https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/

Suppose you write a program that uses Quantis and it outputs

01101   (with *probability* 1/32)

to the screen you are looking at.

Do you think:

A. There are 32 worlds that now exist and you-01101 are just in one of 
them, but there are 31 other you-s out there?

B. You-01101 is the one you that exists (in ine world), and all the 
possible you-s that are not you-01101 have vanished.

C. ?

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/b77a9489-d26a-416c-94e9-747cd890ce2d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
>>> *Richard P. Feynman*
>>> 1951
>>> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf
>>>
>>> *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
>>> Henry Wilkes
>>> September 28, 2018
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
>> virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual  
>>
>
>
>
> I suppose.
>
> But this is more like the interpretation of probabilities as propensities.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probability :
>
> Propensities are not relative frequencies, but purported *causes* of the 
> observed stable relative frequencies. 
>
> In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, 
> the idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of 
> *single-case 
> probability attributions in **quantum mechanics* 
> , such as the 
> probability of decay  of 
> a particular atom  at a particular 
> time.
>
>
> Sum over histories is also sum over possibilities - each possibility has a 
> propensity.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

The statistical interpretation could also fit the frequentist 
interpretation of probability. Truthfully, it's not clear what propensity 
means; sounds related to preferred bases, concerning which I have grave 
doubts. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d50abf22-bc9c-4ad3-a8e5-b48f156f1cdb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-13 Thread Philip Thrift

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
>> *Richard P. Feynman*
>> 1951
>> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf
>>
>> *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
>> Henry Wilkes
>> September 28, 2018
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
> virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual  
>

I suppose.

But this is more like the interpretation of probabilities as propensities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probability :

Propensities are not relative frequencies, but purported *causes* of the 
observed stable relative frequencies. 

In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, the 
idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of *single-case 
probability attributions in **quantum mechanics* 
, such as the probability 
of decay  of a particular 
atom  at a particular time.

Sum over histories is also sum over possibilities - each possibility has a 
propensity.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/3dd3417a-d353-4d85-8c34-2a2ac331daab%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + 
>> |undecayed>, what's the justification and advantage of the 
>> interpretation 
>> that it's in both states simultaneously? AG 
>>
>
> None, since it isn't.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 

>>>
>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't 
>>> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories 
>>> (as I 
>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be 
>> decayed and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *
> simultaneously.
>
> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that 
 imply there is no interference? AG 

>>>
>>> I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of 
>>> the wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the 
>>> system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of 
>>> the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the 
>>> paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states 
>>> simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or 
>>> epistemological)  interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly 
>>> because it denies the existence of interference.  What's your assessment? 
>>> TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the 
>> probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for 
>> quantum phenomena.
>>
>> *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
>> *Richard P. Feynman*
>> 1951
>> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf
>>
>> *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
>> Henry Wilkes
>> September 28, 2018
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
>
The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
virtually solely to ensembles of measurements of identically prepared 
systems and not to individual systems. Is this limitation the reason it is 
not generally accepted, as I believe is the case? Anyone can reply. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70933c22-32a2-4315-87fe-f0bb39876030%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + 
> |undecayed>, what's the justification and advantage of the 
> interpretation 
> that it's in both states simultaneously? AG 
>

 None, since it isn't.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>>>
>>
>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't 
>> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as 
>> I 
>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be 
> decayed and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>


 No.

 It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.

 That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that 
>>> imply there is no interference? AG 
>>>
>>
>> I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of 
>> the wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the 
>> system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of 
>> the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the 
>> paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states 
>> simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or 
>> epistemological)  interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly 
>> because it denies the existence of interference.  What's your assessment? 
>> TIA, AG
>>
>
>
> I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the 
> probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for 
> quantum phenomena.
>
> *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
> *Richard P. Feynman*
> 1951
> http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf
>
> *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
> Henry Wilkes
> September 28, 2018
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer 
virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual  

-- 
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/892714ae-bff8-44d4-8071-f32b9652aa47%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
>> in 
>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>
>
> None, since it isn't.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 

>>>
>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill 
>>> the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
>> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.
>
> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>
> @philipthrift
>

Would you than say that the prevailing claim that the wf implies a 
radioactive source can be in two states simultaneously, decayed and 
undecayed, is an error due to an ontological interpretation, as 
distinquished from an epistemological interpretation of the wf? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27901509-af9d-4b4a-9f19-a6bea6339362%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-12 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:


 In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
 what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
 in 
 both states simultaneously? AG 

>>>
>>> None, since it isn't.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>>
>
> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't 
> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as 
> I 
> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be 
 decayed and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.
>>>
>>> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that 
>> imply there is no interference? AG 
>>
>
> I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of 
> the wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the 
> system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of 
> the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the 
> paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states 
> simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or 
> epistemological)  interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly 
> because it denies the existence of interference.  What's your assessment? 
> TIA, AG
>


I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the 
probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for 
quantum phenomena.

*The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics*
*Richard P. Feynman*
1951
http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf

*Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory*
Henry Wilkes
September 28, 2018
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf


@philipthrift

-- 
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/5dcda888-4b2f-4d40-bacb-689e86d06613%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
>>> in 
>>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>>
>>
>> None, since it isn't.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>

 In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't 
 kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
 understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
>>> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.
>>
>> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that 
> imply there is no interference? AG 
>

I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of the 
wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the 
system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of 
the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the 
paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states 
simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or 
epistemological)  interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly 
because it denies the existence of interference.  What's your assessment? 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/163c7785-0557-477f-9293-a601316770ad%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote:
>
> On 12-11-2019 01:02, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: 
> >>> 
>  On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  
>  wrote: 
>  
> > On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  
> > wrote: 
>  
>  On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>  wrote: 
>  
>  Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. 
>  
>  THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG 
> >>> 
> >>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite 
> >> outcome, 
> >>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition 
> >> decoder, 
> >>> that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. 
> >> So, 
> >>> if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost 
> >>> immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the 
> >> cat 
> >>> dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they 
> >> might 
> >>> interfere themselves. 
> >>> 
> >>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to 
> >> deny. 
> >>> 
> >>> Bruce 
> >>> 
> >>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + 
> >> |undecayed>, 
> >>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that 
> >> it's 
> >>> in both states simultaneously? AG 
> >> 
> >> This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay 
> >> happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay 
> >> will 
> >> happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then 
> >> not 
> >> a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which 
> >> one. 
> >> The difference between the two scenarios has in principle 
> >> experimentally 
> >> verifiable consequences.  For example, the Delta++ particle decays 
> >> to a 
> >> proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong 
> >> 
> >> interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by 
> >> applying 
> >> a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to 
> >> the 
> >> superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> 
> >> denotes a 
> >> neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive 
> >> pions. 
> >> Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 
> >> and 
> >> 2/3. 
> >> 
> >> Saibal 
> > 
> > I don't see how this relates to my question. If the relative decay 
> > probabilites 
> > are what you state, does this mean that the system PRIOR to decay is 
> > several different states simultaneously? AG 
>
> The system will in general be in a superposition, this follows from the 
> Schrodinger equation. The fact that a decay can happen at all means that 
> the particle states are not eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. If you 
> consider a decay in a fixed volume and you impose reflecting boundary 
> conditions, then you won't get a permanent decay at all. The 
> superposition will end up oscillating back and forth from the original 
> particle to the decay products and back. When we compute the decay rate 
> in QM we need to take the limit to an infinite volume to eliminate this 
> oscillation effect and make the long term decay visible. But in 
> principle the superposition between the original undecayed particle and 
> the decay products will always continue to exist. 
>
> Saibal 
>

Thanks, but the issue I am raising is not whether a superposition continues 
to
exist, but the proper interpretation of it. For example, can a radioactive 
source
be decayed and undecayed simultaneously, or is Philip correct in claiming 
both
states are simultaneous possibilties? Huge difference. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed2ae6ff-5620-45fb-b28e-d68333f75fea%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
>> in 
>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>
>
> None, since it isn't.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 

>>>
>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill 
>>> the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
>> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.
>
> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that imply 
there is no 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ffddf8e-ebf2-4191-a32e-5f549691a6e0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-12 Thread smitra

On 12-11-2019 01:02, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote:

On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.

THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG

Because the observable are defined by their possible definite

outcome,

and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition

decoder,

that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed.

So,

if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost
immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the

cat

dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they

might

interfere themselves.

That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to

deny.

Bruce

In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> +

|undecayed>,

what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that

it's

in both states simultaneously? AG

Saibal

I don't see how this relates to my question. If the relative decay
probabilites
are what you state, does this mean that the system PRIOR to decay is
several different states simultaneously? AG

The system will in general be in a superposition, this follows from the
Schrodinger equation. The fact that a decay can happen at all means that
the particle states are not eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. If you
consider a decay in a fixed volume and you impose reflecting boundary
conditions, then you won't get a permanent decay at all. The
superposition will end up oscillating back and forth from the original
particle to the decay products and back. When we compute the decay rate
in QM we need to take the limit to an infinite volume to eliminate this
oscillation effect and make the long term decay visible. But in
principle the superposition between the original undecayed particle and
the decay products will always continue to exist.

Saibal

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-12 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in 
> both states simultaneously? AG 
>

 None, since it isn't.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>>>
>>
>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill 
>> the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>


No.

It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.

That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.

@philipthrift


-- 
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/467dd80e-2b19-4bb8-ad66-84acdfd0e890%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:


 In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
 what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in 
 both states simultaneously? AG 

>>>
>>> None, since it isn't.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>>
>
> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill 
> the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>
> @philipthrift
>

Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b9c301c-fbb3-4548-b490-f39e96368ec2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-12 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in 
>>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>>
>>
>> None, since it isn't.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>

In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't kill 
the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/17e1fc15-1e2c-49ab-917f-a66131c9d59a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Alan Grayson



On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  
> >>> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. 
> >> 
> >> THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG 
> > 
> > Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
> > and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, 
> > that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, 
> > if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost 
> > immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat 
> > dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they might 
> > interfere themselves. 
> > 
> > That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny. 
> > 
> > Bruce 
> > 
> > In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
> > what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
> > in both states simultaneously? AG 
>
> This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay 
> happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay will 
> happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then not 
> a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which one. 
> The difference between the two scenarios has in principle experimentally 
> verifiable consequences.  For example, the Delta++ particle decays to a 
> proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong 
> interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by applying 
> a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to the 
> superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> denotes a 
> neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive pions. 
> Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 and 
> 2/3. 
>
> Saibal 
>

I don't see how this relates to my question. If the relative decay 
probabilites
are what you state, does this mean that the system PRIOR to decay is 
several different states simultaneously? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b43cea0-94e4-4991-b29b-2c3a81675976%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Alan Grayson

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
 On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>>>  
>>>
 On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>

 *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*

 Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
 and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
 is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you 
 look 
 at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
 guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
 why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.

>>>
>>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in 
>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>
>
> None, since it isn't.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

But doesn't the either/or situation imply no 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2217206a-6d6d-49d0-817c-16ba6e241422%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread smitra

On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.

THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG

Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome,
and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder,
that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So,
if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost
immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat
dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they might
interfere themselves.

That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.

Bruce

In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>,
what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's
in both states simultaneously? AG

This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay
happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay will
happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then not
a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which one.
The difference between the two scenarios has in principle experimentally
verifiable consequences. For example, the Delta++ particle decays to a
proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong
interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by applying
a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to the
superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> denotes a
neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive pions.
Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 and
2/3.

Saibal

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>  
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.

>>>
>>> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
>>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
>>> is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look 
>>> at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
>>> guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
>>> why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
> the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
> states simultaneously? AG 
>

None, since it isn't.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/c423f1e4-f44f-48e1-84a5-447d8aacd059%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Alan Grayson



On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>>
>  
>
>> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>>>
>>
>> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>>
>>
>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
>> is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look 
>> at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
>> guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
>> why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>>
>
> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>
> Bruce
>

In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
states simultaneously? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b98cb52-4988-459b-86bb-ca884360e244%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>


> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>>
>
> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>
>
> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, and
> for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that is
> get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look at
> the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a guy
> seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained why
> they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>

That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRDr5%2Bt%2Bq-YjrjMPc3bEkAdUb6ezYfXahbUuEnTcEsahA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2019, at 01:13, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of 
> the wf? TIA, AG
 
 My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
 It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
 of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
 as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
 technical factorisation reason already explained.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
 
 What about sending cats?
>>> 
>>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
>>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
>>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
>>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
>>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
>>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
>>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
>>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
>>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
>>> effect.
>> 
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made 
>> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, since 
>> the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but finite 
>> duration? AG 
> 
> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
> 
> Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG

Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, and for 
reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that is get 
entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look at the cat 
in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a guy seeing the 
cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained why they cannot 
interact, although they might interfere themselves.






>  
> I don’t see any mean to avoid this without introducing non unitary phenomena. 
> [T]he accessibility to interference is very short, because we can’t isolate 
> the cat,
> 
> Then without interference, the superposition ceases to exist! AG

Relatively to me or you, but, in principles, they do not cease to exist, they 
just cease to be detectable.

Bruno


>  
> and the wave length is very tiny (making perhaps no sense in a GR 
> accommodation of QM), but in pure elementary QM, superposition are forever.
> 
> 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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a12597eb-c5c4-4138-b0dd-dde3500c0a54%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/5FF3B4B5-5557-4544-B8FE-393A2F8F82AF%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-10 Thread Alan Grayson



On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 2019, at 01:13, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>>> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
>>> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
>>> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
>>> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
>>> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the 
>>> wf? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse 
>>> frame. It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The 
>>> advantage of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be 
>>> counted as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
>>> technical factorisation reason already explained.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>
>> What about sending cats?
>>
>>
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
>> effect.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
> finite duration? AG 
>
>
> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>

*Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
 

> I don’t see any mean to avoid this without introducing non unitary 
> phenomena. [T]he accessibility to interference is very short, because we 
> can’t isolate the cat, 
>

*Then without interference, the superposition ceases to exist! AG*
 

> and the wave length is very tiny (making perhaps no sense in a GR 
> accommodation of QM), but in pure elementary QM, superposition are forever.
>
> 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a12597eb-c5c4-4138-b0dd-dde3500c0a54%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 8 Nov 2019, at 05:06, Alan Grayson  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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f787705-1ff3-427d-a6f1-085b9baa3e5e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 8 Nov 2019, at 01:13, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > wrote:
 
 IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
 experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
 really a which-way experiment because the interference 
   disappears whether or not which-way is observed. How does this 
 effect the collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to 
 exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So, is the C60 double slit 
 experiment evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG
>>> 
>>> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
>>> It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
>>> of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
>>> as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
>>> technical factorisation reason already explained.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>> 
>>> What about sending cats?
>> 
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely more 
>> complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead state 
>> will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to Grayson 
>> why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state makes it 
>> logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to you. It uses 
>> only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be exploited, require 
>> perfect isolation, which is impossible for most macroscopic object. But some 
>> “macro-superposition” have been obtained with superconducting device. In 
>> fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic effect.
> 
> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible by 
> the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, since 
> the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but finite 
> duration? AG 

Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. I don’t see 
any mean to avoid this without introducing non unitary phenomena. He 
accessibility to interference is very short, because we can’t isolate the cat, 
and the wave length is very tiny (making perhaps no sense in a GR accommodation 
of QM), but in pure elementary QM, superposition are forever.

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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd809b30-38bf-403d-a673-0b4a46ea11cf%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/2E00D986-C82A-43F0-9984-DFAF2FFBFD7E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-08 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 12:46:40 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:39:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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 


 Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
 speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
 isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
 half-life.

 Brent

>>>
>>> But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
>>> nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus.  It's an interaction of 
>>> the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever tunnels 
>>> out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the probability of 
>>> tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a 
>>> low probability of interaction.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in 
>> isolation from the universe. AG 
>>
>
> And each particle constituent of the nucleus becomes entangled with the 
> environment when it's created. I am open to criticisms, but I see this as 
> the solution to the superposition problem. Nothing is isolated. It's just 
> an unrealistic idealization which leads to paradoxes. AG
>

Keep in mind

*The superposition property allows the particle to be in a quantum 
superposition of two or more quantum states at the same time. However, a 
"quantum state" in quantum mechanics means the probability that a system 
will be, for example at a position x, not that the system will actually be 
at position x. *

 
*It does not imply that the particle itself may be in two classical states 
at once.*

* Indeed, quantum mechanics is generally unable to assign values for 
properties prior to measurement at all.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:39:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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 
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
>>> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
>>> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
>>> half-life.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
>> nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 
>>
>>
>> But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus.  It's an interaction of 
>> the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever tunnels 
>> out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the probability of 
>> tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a 
>> low probability of interaction.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in 
> isolation from the universe. AG 
>

And each particle constituent of the nucleus becomes entangled with the 
environment when it's created. I am open to criticisms, but I see this as 
the solution to the superposition problem. Nothing is isolated. It's just 
an unrealistic idealization which leads to paradoxes. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58aaad44-0eb7-4b6a-aab7-e133757b6c36%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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 
>>
>>
>> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
>> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
>> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
>> half-life.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
> nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 
>
>
> But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus.  It's an interaction of 
> the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever tunnels 
> out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the probability of 
> tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a 
> low probability of interaction.
>
> Brent
>

Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in 
isolation from the universe. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dded6ad5-b7fe-44e4-ac82-d232ad3d6859%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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

Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at
the speed of light, are not instantaneous. The atomic nucleus is
relatively isolated. That's why the environment has no measurable
effect on its half-life.

Brent

But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So
nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG

But decoherence doesn't occur */at/ *the nucleus. It's an interaction
of the nucleus with the environment. The alpha particle or whatever
tunnels out in order to interact with the Geiger counter. But the
probability of tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean
by "isolated", a low probability of interaction.

Brent

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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 
>
>
> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
> half-life.
>
> Brent
>

But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e2a3411-561f-4cb9-9d11-e6a916a6377f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson 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


Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
half-life.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e12425d-127e-5c60-852c-a9c6d24089a9%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:06:44 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson 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 
>

Yes, I think that's right. If you imagined a particle being created, 
wouldn't it fail to be isolated at the moment of its creation? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2368c037-ac77-4205-98bf-3b5e9ba5bf68%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



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 

-- 
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/8f787705-1ff3-427d-a6f1-085b9baa3e5e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




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

--
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/cf1affa6-42a9-4ae8-5502-04a417652b1e%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:48:15 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:42 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>
>> What about sending cats?
>>
>>
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is 
>> hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive 
>> or 
>> dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my 
>> explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a 
>> superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a 
>> superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra. 
>> The 
>> quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which is 
>> impossible for most macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” 
>> have 
>> been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a 
>> quantum macroscopic effect.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat 
>> is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit 
>> spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made 
>> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very 
> very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to 
> make, 
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
> finite duration? AG 
>
>
> 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 

>>>
>>> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's 
>>> thought experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so 
>>> what he thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the 
>> context of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously 
>> decayed and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger? 
>> AG 
>>
>
> Decoherence is rapid. Schrodinger did not know about this. But the SWE 
> predicts momentary superpositions -- at least until the environment 
> enforces the preferred basis.
>
> Bruce 
>
7:39 PM (1 hour ago)

What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e273b33f-af8a-44c9-b2e5-db4b2eb22316%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:42 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>
> What about sending cats?
>
>
> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is
> hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or
> dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my
> explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a
> superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a
> superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The
> quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which is
> impossible for most macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” 
> have
> been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a
> quantum macroscopic effect.
>
>
> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat
> is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit
> spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made
> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>
> Brent
>

 I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very
 very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
 since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
 finite duration? AG


 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
>>>
>>
>> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's
>> thought experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so
>> what he thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the
> context of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously
> decayed and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger?
> AG
>

Decoherence is rapid. Schrodinger did not know about this. But the SWE
predicts momentary superpositions -- at least until the environment
enforces the preferred basis.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSOA3B2_hY4deFSGNx%2Bh4aHFaXE0mNtN4hq_4T89v%2BYdA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

 What about sending cats?

 You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
 more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
 state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
 Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition 
 state 
 makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
 you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
 exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
 macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
 superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
 effect.

 Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
 extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit 
 spacing 
 must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
 by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
>>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
>>> finite duration? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 
>>
>
> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's thought 
> experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so what he 
> thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>
> Bruce
>

Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the context 
of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously decayed 
and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e869a71c-1df4-4f8a-9fcf-85f7c14d28a6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference



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 

-- 
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/94d1bb85-b4d3-4cf4-abab-dea19d58f7c4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

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

Re: C60 Interference

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>>
>>> What about sending cats?
>>>
>>>
>>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely
>>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead
>>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to
>>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state
>>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to
>>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be
>>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most
>>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with
>>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic
>>> effect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
>>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
>>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
>>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
>> finite duration? AG
>>
>>
>> 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
>

We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's thought
experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so what he
thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRmKXx763pyvG_fNcGbL8pq5kDK1ES1EYzJxmdiK2oLbg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>
>> What about sending cats?
>>
>>
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
>> effect.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
> finite duration? AG 
>
>
> 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 

-- 
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/f50e8104-8b7b-4ec8-87ba-c837bcc8e4fb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:27 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:07 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


 Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
 extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
 must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
 by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
>>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
>>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
>>> finite duration? AG
>>>
>>
>> Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the
>> absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Sure, but what about the claim that the macro world is really quantum;
> that is, the idea that the macro world is derivable from the quantum world?
> AG
>

What about it? Do you think it can't be done?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTb2E1A4kVVrndYXu5E-AXfKi4CJ0kpZ%3DfsBu45pqAjtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:07 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
>>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
>> finite duration? AG 
>>
>
> Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the 
> absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.
>
> Bruce
>

Sure, but what about the claim that the macro world is really quantum; that 
is, the idea that the macro world is derivable from the quantum world? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e06eb49-ec76-462b-b644-89e2f3f214d6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

What about sending cats?

You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is
hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its
alive or dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.
See my explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of
an object in a superposition state makes it logically impossible
to remain in a superposition relatively to you. It uses only very
elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be exploited, require
perfect isolation, which is impossible for most macroscopic
object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with
superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum
macroscopic effect.

Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a
cat is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit
and slit spacing must be correspondingly small. The C60
experiment was only made possible by the development of the
Tablot-Lau interferometer.

Brent

I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very
very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to
make, since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some
short but finite duration? AG

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

Re: C60 Interference

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
> finite duration? AG
>

Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the
absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRiKhtKT%2BieZsJhB9_c4v9%2B50M9DDu-wqYu-R7gcgssOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
>> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
>> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
>> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
>> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the 
>> wf? TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
>> It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
>> of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
>> as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
>> technical factorisation reason already explained.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>
> What about sending cats?
>
>
> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
> effect.
>
>
> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>
> Brent
>

I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
finite duration? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd809b30-38bf-403d-a673-0b4a46ea11cf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > wrote:

IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit
C60 experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't
think this is really a which-way experiment because the
interference disappears whether or not which-way is observed.
How does this effect the collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when
interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So,
is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the
wf? TIA, AG

My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the
non-collapse frame. It works for particles, Molecules and even
macroscopic cats. The advantage of the non-collapse quantum
theory is that any interaction can be counted as a measurement.
So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the technical
factorisation reason already explained.

Bruno

They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

What about sending cats?

You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is
hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its
alive or dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly. See
my explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object
in a superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a
superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra.
The quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which
is impossible for most macroscopic object. But some
“macro-superposition” have been obtained with superconducting device.
In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic effect.

Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit
spacing must be correspondingly small. The C60 experiment was only made
possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.

Brent

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is really 
>> a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether or not 
>> which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? Usually, 
>> IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So, 
>> is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG
> 
> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. It 
> works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage of 
> the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted as a 
> measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the technical 
> factorisation reason already explained.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
> 
> What about sending cats?

You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely more 
complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead state will 
be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to Grayson why any 
(unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state makes it logically 
impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to you. It uses only very 
elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect 
isolation, which is impossible for most macroscopic object. But some 
“macro-superposition” have been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, 
superconductor is a quantum macroscopic effect.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> 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/08edded8-362f-4ae0-bca6-8716ea7736fd%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/7E2304DB-DFA9-4E65-BAC5-3117482D7075%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-06 Thread Philip Thrift



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the 
> wf? TIA, AG
>
>
> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
> It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
> of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
> as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
> technical factorisation reason already explained.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

What about sending cats?

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/08edded8-362f-4ae0-bca6-8716ea7736fd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is really 
> a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether or not 
> which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? Usually, 
> IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So, 
> is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG

My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. It 
works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage of the 
non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted as a 
measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the technical 
factorisation reason already explained.

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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f93dfe7-3eb7-44c5-b594-68ca1f869a0d%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/3FB339DA-F10F-4852-AE33-FF2C59B7B0FB%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 11/5/2019 8:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/2019 2:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > 
>> > That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or 
>> > watching the slits, 
>> > how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of 
>> > interference without 
>> > which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG 
>>
>> That we don't have to possess the which-way information.  It's enough 
>> that it exists. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> Yes, that's how I revised my understanding of the double slit experiment. 
> BUT Bruce says we DO get which-way information. How is that possible just 
> based on temperature? AG
>
>
> He didn't say we got it.  He said it was possible to get it. Just as 
> watching a glowing body allows you to know its trajectory.
>
> Brent
>

I see. Then we don't need Buckyballs or heated particles, just a cloud 
chamber enclosing a double slit experiment with electrons being fired, and 
no need to look at the paths, and the interference pattern would disappear. 
If so, what about the deBroglie wave length for the electron and its wave 
like property? Does it become irrelevant to the result of the experiment? 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac4a972c-a2e2-489e-a00c-946525a2631a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 11/5/2019 8:10 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 11/5/2019 2:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused
on, or
> watching the slits,
> how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of
> interference without
> which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG

That we don't have to possess the which-way information.  It's enough
that it exists.

Brent

Yes, that's how I revised my understanding of the double slit 
experiment. BUT Bruce says we DO get which-way information. How is 
that possible just based on temperature? AG

He didn't say we got it.  He said it was possible to get it. Just as 
watching a glowing body allows you to know its trajectory.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d11fefc-5b3b-7fd0-d065-8fd278ec8bbd%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/5/2019 2:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or 
> > watching the slits, 
> > how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of 
> > interference without 
> > which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG 
>
> That we don't have to possess the which-way information.  It's enough 
> that it exists. 
>
> Brent 
>

Yes, that's how I revised my understanding of the double slit experiment. 
BUT Bruce says we DO get which-way information. How is that possible just 
based on temperature? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4caac278-f45b-469b-97fb-4a3ec3b314f8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 11/5/2019 2:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or 
watching the slits,
how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of 
interference without

which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG


That we don't have to possess the which-way information.  It's enough 
that it exists.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccec6a16-8dbb-c19e-03c5-e768f42878e3%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:10:21 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:11:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 11/5/2019 9:21 AM, smitra wrote:
 > On 05-11-2019 02:53, Alan Grayson wrote:
 >> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60
 >> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this
 is
 >> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears
 >> whether or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the
 >> collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it
 >> implies collapse of the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment
 >> evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG
 >
 >
 > Consider the C60 moving through one or the other slit and then ending
 > up at some spot x on the screen. If the state of the rest of the
 > universe when the C60 takes on slit is |A(x)> and it is |B(x)> if
 > another slit is taken, then the interference pattern locally at spot
 x
 > on the screen will be proportional to Re[]. So, if there
 is
 > perfect which way information for C60 that arrive in the neighborhood
 > of spot x on the screen, then the two environmental states will be
 > orthogonal and the interference will vanish.
 >
 > In case of the experiment in a thermal environment, the C60 will
 > suffer collisions with photons.

 It's not collisions with photons from the environment.  The C60s are
 heated in the experiment, so it is IR emission from the C60 that puts
 which-way information into the environment.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or
>>> watching the slits,
>>> how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of
>>> interference without
>>> which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG
>>>
>>
>> I thought I had explained that in my first post on this matter. If the IR
>> photon wavelength is short enough, detecting that photon enables one to
>> determine which path the C60 followed, or which slit it went through.
>>
>
> Amazing if true. I assume the photon is emitted in random directions and,
> moreover, there's no observation of the slits. If so, how could this
> determine which-way? AG
>

Simply by localizing which path the atom followed. Elementary, my dear
Watson.

As the C60 atoms are heated up, the IR wavelengths become shorter, and we
>> can determine which slit for a greater proportion of the photons. Hence the
>> interference disappears gradually as the temperature increases. We do not
>> even have to detect the IR photons -- their information is in the
>> environment, and that is sufficient decoherence for the interference to
>> vanish.
>>
>
> This I previously understood. But what is the big picture take-away from
> this phenomenon? AG
>

Quantum mechanics is wonderful!

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTbkqf_DrUgCtRq-Yctk3pH5cP3L8p-tt77NMYOigX_PA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:10:21 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:11:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/5/2019 9:21 AM, smitra wrote: 
>>> > On 05-11-2019 02:53, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> >> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>>> >> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
>>> >> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears 
>>> >> whether or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the 
>>> >> collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it 
>>> >> implies collapse of the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment 
>>> >> evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > Consider the C60 moving through one or the other slit and then ending 
>>> > up at some spot x on the screen. If the state of the rest of the 
>>> > universe when the C60 takes on slit is |A(x)> and it is |B(x)> if 
>>> > another slit is taken, then the interference pattern locally at spot x 
>>> > on the screen will be proportional to Re[]. So, if there is 
>>> > perfect which way information for C60 that arrive in the neighborhood 
>>> > of spot x on the screen, then the two environmental states will be 
>>> > orthogonal and the interference will vanish. 
>>> > 
>>> > In case of the experiment in a thermal environment, the C60 will 
>>> > suffer collisions with photons. 
>>>
>>> It's not collisions with photons from the environment.  The C60s are 
>>> heated in the experiment, so it is IR emission from the C60 that puts 
>>> which-way information into the environment. 
>>
>>
>> That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or 
>> watching the slits, 
>> how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of 
>> interference without
>> which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG
>>
>
> I thought I had explained that in my first post on this matter. If the IR 
> photon wavelength is short enough, detecting that photon enables one to 
> determine which path the C60 followed, or which slit it went through. 
>

Amazing if true. I assume the photon is emitted in random directions and, 
moreover, there's no observation of the slits. If so, how could this 
determine which-way? AG
 

> As the C60 atoms are heated up, the IR wavelengths become shorter, and we 
> can determine which slit for a greater proportion of the photons. Hence the 
> interference disappears gradually as the temperature increases. We do not 
> even have to detect the IR photons -- their information is in the 
> environment, and that is sufficient decoherence for the interference to 
> vanish.
>

This I previously understood. But what is the big picture take-away from 
this phenomenon? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccd9eac0-f521-4611-bb30-991159bb2a5d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

2019-11-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:11:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 11/5/2019 9:21 AM, smitra wrote:
>> > On 05-11-2019 02:53, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> >> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60
>> >> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is
>> >> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears
>> >> whether or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the
>> >> collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it
>> >> implies collapse of the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment
>> >> evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG
>> >
>> >
>> > Consider the C60 moving through one or the other slit and then ending
>> > up at some spot x on the screen. If the state of the rest of the
>> > universe when the C60 takes on slit is |A(x)> and it is |B(x)> if
>> > another slit is taken, then the interference pattern locally at spot x
>> > on the screen will be proportional to Re[]. So, if there is
>> > perfect which way information for C60 that arrive in the neighborhood
>> > of spot x on the screen, then the two environmental states will be
>> > orthogonal and the interference will vanish.
>> >
>> > In case of the experiment in a thermal environment, the C60 will
>> > suffer collisions with photons.
>>
>> It's not collisions with photons from the environment.  The C60s are
>> heated in the experiment, so it is IR emission from the C60 that puts
>> which-way information into the environment.
>
>
> That's what I don't understand. If there's no detector focused on, or
> watching the slits,
> how can which-way information exist? All we observe is loss of
> interference without
> which-way information. What can we conclude from this? AG
>

I thought I had explained that in my first post on this matter. If the IR
photon wavelength is short enough, detecting that photon enables one to
determine which path the C60 followed, or which slit it went through. As
the C60 atoms are heated up, the IR wavelengths become shorter, and we can
determine which slit for a greater proportion of the photons. Hence the
interference disappears gradually as the temperature increases. We do not
even have to detect the IR photons -- their information is in the
environment, and that is sufficient decoherence for the interference to
vanish.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRv1P%3DQtKJQFtZS9w%3D8JP%3DrGetTNVwiR9Co74cQr2J6EQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference