clipka wrote:
> The interesting thing here being that there is no such thing as an 
> outside observer in this entire universe (as, by definition, such an 
> observer would obviously have to be not in but outside of it).
> 
> I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
> outside observer in this sense.
> 
> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
> we have is interaction.

One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
particles.  XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
> particles.  XD

One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Robert Sawyer has investigated that in a quite delightful novel called Starplex.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only 
>> thing we have is interaction.
> 
> That is, indeed, 82% crazy.

Why is that?  You've heard of Heisenberg, haven't you? :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
>> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
>> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse 
>> to particles.  XD
> 
> One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Wrong?  Qualitatively, it wouldn't be 'wrong' so much as 
'unprovable'...either way.  'Wrong' is reserved for statements which are 
*provably* untrue.  'Not provable'!='not right' or 'not wrong'

:3

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> 'Wrong' is reserved for statements which are *provably* untrue.  

I would think you could prove that to be untrue, just like you can prove 
there are no hidden variables.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal thought on the matter is 

Did you ever study this stuff formally? Or are you guessing?

> 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. 

I'm not even sure what that means, but since I can observe the effects of 
quantum mechanical superpositions at the macroscopic scale (without even 
having any sophisticated equipment) I find this an unlikely explanation.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

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

You are forgiven; we'll file that as "random thermal noise" :-)


The thing that presently intrigues me most about the quantom world is 
the question: Do probability waveforms really always /collapse/ when 
particles interact - in the sense that the resulting effect is 
/definite/ - or do they just "narrow down"?

That is, if for instance you do the double-slit experiment with single 
particles, firing them at a photographic plate - will this really result 
in a pattern of exposed spots on an otherwise non-exposed plate, or will 
it rather result in a pattern of spots that are 99.99999% likely to be 
exposd, on a plate otherwise 99.99999% likely to be non-exposed?

Or, to put it in other words: Is /fact/ something that actually 
manifests whenever independent particles interact, or is it just an 
illusion all throughout, and "independent" particles are merely just 
"weakly entangled"?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The thing that presently intrigues me most about the quantom world is 
> the question: Do probability waveforms really always /collapse/ when 
> particles interact - in the sense that the resulting effect is 
> /definite/ - or do they just "narrow down"?

First, you have Plank's uncertainty. Second, you have a lack of invariance 
over scale, meaning your exposure of a particular "spot" on the film isn't 
going to be smaller than an atom anyway.

> That is, if for instance you do the double-slit experiment with single 
> particles, firing them at a photographic plate - will this really result 
> in a pattern of exposed spots on an otherwise non-exposed plate, or will 
> it rather result in a pattern of spots that are 99.99999% likely to be 
> exposd, on a plate otherwise 99.99999% likely to be non-exposed?

That doesn't make sense. Either the spots are exposed, or they aren't. (Of 
course, even exposed spots can spontaneously move around in the same way 
that all the air in your room may spontaneously shoot up into one corner.)

> Or, to put it in other words: Is /fact/ something that actually 
> manifests whenever independent particles interact, or is it just an 
> illusion all throughout, and "independent" particles are merely just 
> "weakly entangled"?

I'm pretty sure that particles which have never interacted cannot be even 
weakly entangled. But it takes more than a small number of particles 
interacting to make something "fact" at the macroscopic level.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message