 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/16/2011 8:19, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> On 9/14/2011 11:46, Alain wrote:
>>> Shroeder's cat is always both dead and alive untill someone does observe it.
>
>> I think most people miss the point of this question, which is to ask whether
>> the *cat* observes itself.
>
> Isn't the interpretation such that the state of the particle/molecule/cat
> is relative, not absolute?
That's another question the cat raises, yes.
The idea was not "LOL, the cat can't be alive and dead at the same time so
you're obviously wrong", which is how most people interpret it. The question
is what causes the "collapse" if the right answer is "observation".
> I think that the question presented by the original thought experiment is
> that, if quantum superposition is indeed the correct interpretation, whether
> such superpositions apply to macroscopic objects.
I don't think there's any question any more that they apply to macroscopic
objects. At the time the question was raised, sure, maybe.
But at what point and for what reason wouldn't they apply?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> You guys are cracking me up here ... this thread started as a purely
>> tongue in cheek observation of nocturnal posting habits. I'm amazed at
>> the over analysis that's going on now. Have mercy ... some of you could
>> drain every ounce of fun out of a rousing game of trivial pursuit.
>
> Nothing is funnier than overanalyzing things.
>
Entirely true! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But at what point and for what reason wouldn't they apply?
For the same reason that if you kick footballs towards a wall with
two slits on it (slightly wider than the football), you don't get a
diffraction pattern on a wall behind it where the balls hit.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/09/2011 5:37 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>>> You guys are cracking me up here ... this thread started as a purely
>>> tongue in cheek observation of nocturnal posting habits. I'm amazed at
>>> the over analysis that's going on now. Have mercy ... some of you could
>>> drain every ounce of fun out of a rousing game of trivial pursuit.
>>
>> Nothing is funnier than overanalyzing things.
>>
>
> Entirely true! :)
>
Are you sure that it is entirely true?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/16/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> But at what point and for what reason wouldn't they apply?
>
> For the same reason that if you kick footballs towards a wall with
> two slits on it (slightly wider than the football), you don't get a
> diffraction pattern on a wall behind it where the balls hit.
Yes you do. It's just that the diffraction pattern is very, very fine.
Probably finer than you can actually measure. But theoretically it's there.
However, even if you were correct, that doesn't answer the question. The
point of S's cat is to show that the answer is not "they don't apply because
I observed the result."
You're aware of Bose-Einstein condensates, right? And you're aware they've
actually been made out of elementary particles larger than the entire room
they're centered in? Size has little if anything to do with it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 16/09/2011 5:37 PM, Alain wrote:
>>> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>>>> You guys are cracking me up here ... this thread started as a purely
>>>> tongue in cheek observation of nocturnal posting habits. I'm amazed at
>>>> the over analysis that's going on now. Have mercy ... some of you could
>>>> drain every ounce of fun out of a rousing game of trivial pursuit.
>>>
>>> Nothing is funnier than overanalyzing things.
>>>
>>
>> Entirely true! :)
>>
>
> Are you sure that it is entirely true?
>
To be honest, it also depends on who you ask about that. But is's still fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> But at what point and for what reason wouldn't they apply?
> >
> > For the same reason that if you kick footballs towards a wall with
> > two slits on it (slightly wider than the football), you don't get a
> > diffraction pattern on a wall behind it where the balls hit.
> Yes you do. It's just that the diffraction pattern is very, very fine.
> Probably finer than you can actually measure. But theoretically it's there.
The diffraction pattern isn't there even with elemental particles if you
measure which slit the particles go through.
How do you set up a situation where it's not possible to tell which slit
the football went through? I don't think it's physically possible.
You could perhaps try having the experiment in an absolute vacuum (something
which is already very hard), and in an environment with no electromagnetic
radiation of any kind, that could hit the ball and tell its trajectory
(maybe it would be theoretically possible, but I'm not sure it is in
practice). Also anything else that could hit the ball and hence possibly
tell its trajectory (eg. neutrinos and cosmic rays) would have to be
completely absent.
In fact, thinking about it. would the ball and the walls themselves emit
photons that could tell the trajectory? Are they black body radiators?
I suppose that if that's the case, the ball and the walls would have to be
cooled to absolute zero to stop them from emitting any particles.
So let's see, absolute vacuum, complete isolation from external
electromagnetic radiation and other particles (such as neutrinos and
cosmic rays), and the objects cooled to absolute zero to stop them from
emitting any particles.
But is that enough? What about vacuum energy? Virtual particles that
pop up into existence spontaneously, hitting the ball? Could they be used
to measure its trajectory?
Even if *all* of those things were somehow taken care of, would there
be an interference pattern?
If yes, what explains the deviation in the trajectory of the ball?
One of the fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, strong
interaction, weak interaction)? How can they deviate the ball so much?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/09/2011 6:16 PM, Alain wrote:
>> On 16/09/2011 5:37 PM, Alain wrote:
>>>> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>>>>> You guys are cracking me up here ... this thread started as a purely
>>>>> tongue in cheek observation of nocturnal posting habits. I'm amazed at
>>>>> the over analysis that's going on now. Have mercy ... some of you
>>>>> could
>>>>> drain every ounce of fun out of a rousing game of trivial pursuit.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is funnier than overanalyzing things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Entirely true! :)
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure that it is entirely true?
>>
>
> To be honest, it also depends on who you ask about that. But is's still
> fun.
Honesty is the best policy, I've been told. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> But at what point and for what reason wouldn't they apply?
>>>
>>> For the same reason that if you kick footballs towards a wall with
>>> two slits on it (slightly wider than the football), you don't get a
>>> diffraction pattern on a wall behind it where the balls hit.
>
>> Yes you do. It's just that the diffraction pattern is very, very fine.
>> Probably finer than you can actually measure. But theoretically it's there.
>
> The diffraction pattern isn't there even with elemental particles if you
> measure which slit the particles go through.
>
> How do you set up a situation where it's not possible to tell which slit
> the football went through? I don't think it's physically possible.
>
> You could perhaps try having the experiment in an absolute vacuum (something
> which is already very hard), and in an environment with no electromagnetic
> radiation of any kind, that could hit the ball and tell its trajectory
> (maybe it would be theoretically possible, but I'm not sure it is in
> practice). Also anything else that could hit the ball and hence possibly
> tell its trajectory (eg. neutrinos and cosmic rays) would have to be
> completely absent.
>
> In fact, thinking about it. would the ball and the walls themselves emit
> photons that could tell the trajectory? Are they black body radiators?
> I suppose that if that's the case, the ball and the walls would have to be
> cooled to absolute zero to stop them from emitting any particles.
>
> So let's see, absolute vacuum, complete isolation from external
> electromagnetic radiation and other particles (such as neutrinos and
> cosmic rays), and the objects cooled to absolute zero to stop them from
> emitting any particles.
>
> But is that enough? What about vacuum energy? Virtual particles that
> pop up into existence spontaneously, hitting the ball? Could they be used
> to measure its trajectory?
>
> Even if *all* of those things were somehow taken care of, would there
> be an interference pattern?
>
> If yes, what explains the deviation in the trajectory of the ball?
> One of the fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, strong
> interaction, weak interaction)? How can they deviate the ball so much?
>
I remember a day in my physics class when we where studying waves. We
had to calculate the effective wave lenght of common, macroscopic, objects.
It depended on mass and dimentions, both tending to give smaller values
as they get larger.
For a footbal, it would be in the 10e-20 to 10e-30 m range. So, your
interference pattern would be smaller than a proton.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> For a footbal, it would be in the 10e-20 to 10e-30 m range. So, your
> interference pattern would be smaller than a proton.
That starts being awfully close to the planck length.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
