Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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*.
> 
Sigh.. Sorry, thought I had changed/removed all the stupid poorly used 
"". :p Missed a few. Sigh...

-- 
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