Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, what I am getting at is the math works in some specific cases, but 

> most of the time your particles are "not" in a state where that case 
> applies. 

Why not? If the particle gets in that state, how does it get out of that 

state? You can't just say "interaction" without giving specifics, since 
"interaction with other particles" is exactly what QM defines. If it was 

obvious that mere interactions with other particles resolved the problem,
 
the guy who invented the Schrödinger equations wouldn't have come up
 with 
the thought experiment in the first place.

What situations do particles get into where the QM equations don't apply?
 
Because every test seems to indicate we know the right *equations* to a 
tremendous number of decimal places.  You can't just say "it doesn't appl
y 
sometimes" without saying the circumstances under which it doesn't.

> That is what I mean about constraints. The cat, as a 
> collection, has constraints that an individual particle, in the test 
> cases, doesn't. 

That's the "decoherence" argument, if I understand you right. It's one of
 
many possible answers, but it's not obviously accepted by everyone involv
ed.

What constraint applies to many particles that doesn't apply to one, 
according the the Schrödinger equations?

> After all, we don't throw cats are targets to measure 
> their QM, we generate single particles. 

Sure. But we look at distant stars to see the QM manifest in outer space.
 We 
generate Bose-einstein condensates bigger than a cat.

> It just tells you it won't be 
> what you would have had *without it*. 

Sorry. Pronoun overflow. What tells me what what wont be without what?


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message