 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
This isn't saying that you can't produce special conditions where the
general rule is violated, just that, outside those conditions, it does.
Much like Newton applying in a general sense, relativity in others, and
there being some cases where that doesn't *quite* apply either, given
the correct conditions.
And, no, I can't say that I have studied it extensively, but I am not
guessing either. We know, unless we are seeing things, that every atom
in a room doesn't spontaneously *leap* to one corner. There has to be a
reason for it, and the best reason available is that, under normal
conditions, interactions between particle, weak or otherwise, prevent
it. This is why you have to create conditions where some of those are
"not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why
the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't,
based on observation of everything else. Why can you intentionally
violate the rules, when normally nothing, including the intent to do
something, like walking through a wall, which would be a similar
violation, is normally never happening? Enlighten me. What else, other
than freeform interaction, without something specifically designed to
"create" conditions where a violation of the normal rules can happen,
stops it from happening all the time?
--
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:
> There has to be a
> reason for it, and the best reason available is that, under normal
> conditions, interactions between particle, weak or otherwise, prevent
> it.
Yes, of course. The only point I'm contesting is the assertion that a single
interaction with a single particle is enough to collapse the waveform and
serve as an "observation".
> "not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why
> the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't,
Who says they shouldn't?
> Enlighten me. What else, other
> than freeform interaction, without something specifically designed to
> "create" conditions where a violation of the normal rules can happen,
> stops it from happening all the time?
Probability. You *can* walk thru the wall. The odds against it happening are
just 1^-1000.
Just like you *can* randomly shuffle a deck of cards and come up with Ace
thru King in each suit in order when you're done. It's just so phenomenally
rare that you'd never expect to see it happen.
--
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:
>> There has to be a reason for it, and the best reason available is
>> that, under normal conditions, interactions between particle, weak or
>> otherwise, prevent it.
>
> Yes, of course. The only point I'm contesting is the assertion that a
> single interaction with a single particle is enough to collapse the
> waveform and serve as an "observation".
>
>> "not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why
>> the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't,
>
> Who says they shouldn't?
>
>> Enlighten me. What else, other than freeform interaction, without
>> something specifically designed to "create" conditions where a
>> violation of the normal rules can happen, stops it from happening all
>> the time?
>
> Probability. You *can* walk thru the wall. The odds against it happening
> are just 1^-1000.
>
> Just like you *can* randomly shuffle a deck of cards and come up with
> Ace thru King in each suit in order when you're done. It's just so
> phenomenally rare that you'd never expect to see it happen.
>
Hmm. The problem with such probabilities is, much like winning the
lotto, no matter how rare they are, someone is bound to observe
"something" that is doing them, given the number of total attempts
(i.e., the number of objects, just on this planet, and the number of
fractions of a second that are available, even in a human life time). To
not happen, the odds would have to be so unlikely that they could only
transpire like.. twice in the entirely history of the universe? I am not
convinced.
--
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:
> the odds would have to be so unlikely that they could only
> transpire like.. twice in the entirely history of the universe?
If that. Probably closer to 10^-100 times in the entire history of the
universe. If you're talking about something like all the atoms in a room
suddenly all going left and right, leaving you in the middle suffocating.
Remember, there's some 10^22 atoms of nitrogen in each gram of atmosphere in
your room. If each one is 25% likely to be going the right direction, what's
the likelyhood a kilogram of them will all go the right direction?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
