|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |