Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)
> 
> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
> "interaction with another particle." Indeed, figuring out the 
> probabilities of where the particle goes is basically calculating all 
> possible interactions the particle might have had while you're not 
> looking. There's no fundamental reason in the equations that the wave 
> forms should collapse, and there's no fundamental reason why any lab 
> equipment you might set up shouldn't be in a superposition of states. 
> Indeed, if you look up how a delayed choice quantum eraser works, you 
> can see that the particle can be in a superposition of states even after 
> it has been measured and recorded, let alone interacting with one other 
> particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> 
> (And incidentally, the word is "moot", not "mute." :-)
> 

My personal thought on the matter is that any single particle can be in 
a quantum state, or you could do so in a condensate, but that, in normal 
conditions, the vibrations introduced by thermal variance, and possibly 
other sources of energy, introduce a situation where its no longer 
possible for all particles to be in a single state. Once any one falls 
out of a superposition state, its interaction with others causes *all* 
of their quantum states to collapse into a specific state. After that, 
since no single particle is ever, for any significant amount of time, 
out of contact with other particles effects, they cannot return to an 
unknown state. Now, if such state transitions where instantaneous, we 
*would* have a problem. But, a recent experiment showed that they are 
not. Basically, if it was instant, then you couldn't do something to a 
particle, which collapsed its state, stop that state change part way, 
and make it instead shift to a different one. You would never have 
enough time to introduce the second change. However, the experiment 
showed that, in fact, you "could" introduce such a second change, and 
reverse the partial transition, which was already taking place.

So, no, an object, above absolute zero, can never reach superposition, 
or any other quantum state, since its own particles will prevent such 
transitions, via their constant interactions, none of which allow for 
enough time to pass in which a state change could happen. In effect, 
their proximity "locks" them in what ever state they are already in. To 
change the state of one particle, you would have to induce a state 
change in *all of them* at the same time, or at least a sufficient 
number that they majority would impose their state, instead of reverting 
to their prior state, via interface with the other, unchanged, particles.

It may also be a case that a large mass of particles will fall into 
states that are stable, and that most quantum states, in such large 
collections, are *not*.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message