Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> All are in agreement with he Schrödinger wave equation, so it's not 
>> the equation that's the issue here.
> 
> OK. I'm now more educated, I think.

It's a point which is often neglected.  Just to be clear though, the 
issue is more subtle than I'm making it sound and AFAIK most 
interpretations which give a deterministic state to the cat have run 
into problems (for instance when incorporating them into special 
relativity).  Also such interpretations are necessarily non-local.


>> Perhaps I'm missing what  point you're making?
> 
> Only that the quantum equations don't *seem* to apply to the macroscopic 
> world, for reasons unknown?

Yeah, IANAP (I am not a physicist) but as far as I'm aware this is 
correct.  Although I think there's some interpretations which describe 
why this is the case perfectly well, they just might come with other 
philosophical implications that are undesirable (for instance I'd put 
the many-worlds interpretation into this class).

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Also such interpretations are necessarily non-local.

I read recently that someone did a Bell's Inequality type of experiment with 
  more than 20 angles measured in 3D and from that somehow deduced locality. 
Interesting.

> Yeah, IANAP (I am not a physicist) but as far as I'm aware this is 
> correct.  Although I think there's some interpretations which describe 
> why this is the case perfectly well, they just might come with other 
> philosophical implications that are undesirable (for instance I'd put 
> the many-worlds interpretation into this class).

Yah. I suspect it's much more mundane, like the "decoherence" section of the 
paper Neeum posted.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Also such interpretations are necessarily non-local.
> 
> I read recently that someone did a Bell's Inequality type of experiment 
> with  more than 20 angles measured in 3D and from that somehow deduced 
> locality. Interesting.

Do you have a reference to this?  I'd be interested to see the details 
of what exactly they mean by that.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Do you have a reference to this?  I'd be interested to see the details 
> of what exactly they mean by that.

I'm afraid that was before I started bookmarking everything that caught my 
interest. :-)  It was in something like Discover magazine, so there wasn't 
much detail beyond what I already said in the article itself, but there 
might have been links to the actual publication on the page.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Perseid_Meteor.jpg
> 
> Here in the name of God does the night sky actually look like this?!

Anywhere far away from any major population center.  In addition to 
being able to see many more stars, I've found that you can also spot 
about 10-30 shooting stars per hour in areas like that.  It's quite 
beautiful, and unfortunate that many people have always lived where you 
simply can't see that sort of thing.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Of course, the only flaw in the argument is that a cat isn't a 
>> particle, so what effects *one* particle, doesn't effect something 
>> made of a *lot* of them. 
> 
> Why not?  Indeed, that *is* the flaw in the argument, but the question 
> is "why not?"
> 
>> This is the absurdity involved. Its like asking why relativity doesn't 
>> work in black holes. Because its a bloody black hole, which has 
>> different rules. 
> 
> Relativity works just fine in black holes. That's why we know about them.
> 
>> In effect, QM is what goes on in single instances, 
> 
> Single instances of what?
> 
>> normal reality is an emergent property of what happens when QM can't 
>> (or, if you prefer, the constraints put on the system reduce the 
>> probability of a different result to near zero).
> 
> Like what, in the case of the cat, specifically?  A different result 
> from being alive or dead?
> 
>> Same with particle interactions. Right?
> 
> You tell me. You seem to have it all figured out so trivially.
> 
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. That is what I mean about constraints. The cat, as a 
collection, has constraints that an individual particle, in the test 
cases, doesn't. After all, we don't throw cats are targets to measure 
their QM, we generate single particles. And, no, that isn't bloody 
trivial, any more than saying, "adding a strange attractor", tell you 
what the result will actually look like. It just tells you it won't be 
what you would have had *without it*. If I said A + B = QM, that would 
be a "trivial" solution. lol

-- 
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:
> 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

Darren New wrote:
>> 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?
> 

What the result will be, without an attractor. As I said, I don't have a 
math equation to explain it, but there obviously needs to be one, since, 
under normal circumstances, as you say, you don't get non-decoherent 
effects.


-- 
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:
> What the result will be, without an attractor. 

OK, I'm afraid you're not making any sense to me, so ... nevermind.

You're either completely missing my point, or you're talking about something 
entirely different than what I am.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> What the result will be, without an attractor. 
> 
> OK, I'm afraid you're not making any sense to me, so ... nevermind.
> 
> You're either completely missing my point, or you're talking about 
> something entirely different than what I am.
> 
I am saying that, in general principle, large masses of particles act 
"similar" to what a strange attractor does for the images some people 
have been making in povray.images. It changes the behavior of the 
system. Until you plot the result, you don't necessarily have a 
prediction of what that will be, but it "not" what you end up with if 
you had one single particle. Mind, in reality, we have fairly clear 
ideas what happens if you place x number of protons/neutrons and 
electrons together, in a stable configuration, you end up with an 
element or isotope.

None of which describes why, or how, trivially or otherwise, which is 
the crux of your accusation.

-- 
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