
#73
Sep1907, 05:54 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,886

Thanks for the interesting points. 



#74
Sep1907, 05:58 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,886





#75
Sep1907, 06:07 PM

Mentor
P: 28,801

Zz. 



#76
Sep1907, 06:09 PM

HW Helper
P: 2,566





#77
Sep1907, 06:48 PM

P: 2,050

good post, X.
When I was first taught of MW, I was given the impression that the branching of worlds was a very random ad hoc alternative to nondeterministic collapse. Now I wonder whether historically it was first proposed with decoherence already in mind. 



#78
Sep1907, 08:37 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,886

This part of the thread was about whether a linear superposition of two states (dead or alive) should be described as "both dead and alive" or "neither dead nor alive". At thi spoint I think that everybody agrees that the most (and maybe only) accurate description is to say that the system is a linear superposition, period. But if one insists on using everyday language, it seems impossible to accurately convey what a quantum linear superposition means. Then it becomes subjective, to a point, what language is used. Still, I personally think that "both dead an alive" is misleading. It would imply that once the measurement is made, and let`s say the outcome is "alive", that the cat "ceased to be dead" since it was both dead and alive before the measurement. I find the "neither dead nor alive" at the same better and quite unsatisfying. I would suggest the following as the best description. A cat in the linear superposition of dead and alive is a cat which has the potential of being alive and he potential of being dead. Just my two cents.... 



#79
Sep1907, 08:43 PM

Mentor
P: 28,801

Where is the electron that somehow has formed the bonding or antibonding? It has formed it, but it isn't here nor there! And you found this to be "better"? Zz. 



#80
Sep1907, 10:43 PM

HW Helper
P: 2,566





#81
Sep1907, 11:40 PM

P: 17

From my years of playing poker and trying to determine my opponents hand via looking for "tells" or ways to figure out if his hand is good or not based on my opponents behavior and the current environment(other information ive gathered such as the cards in my hand and other cards shown or showing). This is indeed the same problem. We can determine if the cat is alive or dead by making simple observations about it's environment whether it being atmospherical or physical. Is the box moving? Is the box shaking? Is the box warm in a particular spot? Is there air in which the cat can breathe?Is the box emitting sound? These are ways to determine if the cat is alive or not.
The same thing is, in theory, true for partical movement just we have not yet found these observations or what to look for regarding the particals environment. And another question comes in where if 2 particals were entangled across the universe. Would the entanglements affect other traveling particals and entanglements? 



#82
Sep2007, 12:14 AM

P: 379





#83
Sep2007, 12:52 AM

P: 2,799

Some comments.
I read that paper again last night, and while the general idea that any system will attain some level of correlation with the environment, and that there is a selective mutual pressure between environment and the system is right on... ...but like others say, I wouldn't say it solves the collapse as such, beucase OTOH the collapse isn't an issue for me becuse IMO it's simply sort of a bayesian revision due to the limited measurement resolution and finite complexity of memory  I suspect Alan who is a poker will know what I mean  I like the poker analogy too. I see no way around this. Unless you of course reformulate the problem, but the care should be taken because then we might not ask the same question. Also, if we are consider an observer B that observes a system + observer A, then clearly we are working in two different descriptions. Observer A has not use of B:s information. Sure they can communicate, but then we add time. In my thinking (spacetime aside!) one can't transfer arbitrary amounts between two records arbitrarily. I think the information transfer is part of defining time which implies a locality in terms of information. I am eventually working on an explicit formalism for this but it alot of things to do left. Also, I think the assumption that there is strong correlation between the environment and the system in the first place is valid only it they are close to equilibrium  ie that the system is already "stabilized" i the environment. I figure that this is not a valid assuption in the general case. Also if one is to talk about the actual stabilisation process, this takes time, and then the argumentation gets more complicated. Information that is available in the future, is not available now. I see no sense in that argumentation. I think the paper is interesting in a sense but it does not get rid of the collapse. The fact that C may observe the correlation between A and B the system, and sees a resolution to the collapse problem is an observation with the wrong condition. The fact that A sees a collapse, doesn't mean that everybody sees a collapse. I don't see a problem with that at all. I think there is an intrinstic limit due to information capacity, which limits the maximum possible entanglement! and this constraint may impose collapses. I think part of the problem is that all the players have incomplete information, and it's NOT due to flawed or incompetent strategies, it's due to the limiting structures to hold correlation information and due to TIME that correlations are a dynamical thing, if you are thrown into a new environment, then you need some time to equilibrate with the environment, which is btw, mutual. /Fredrik 



#84
Sep2007, 01:27 AM

P: 17

When I sit down to a new table, I do have a set strategy and you are right. There is a time factor here. But if A has basic knowledge of environment A. And then A is thrown into environment B(or a new poker table with new people) with the knowledge of evironment A and we are observing a simular situation of a poker game. Then A would have the potential to make correct predictions on the opponents cards more so then when A started at evironment A. Then when A is introduced to environment C and is also a simular situation of a poker game. Then A would have the knowledge of Evironments A and B. And so on and so forth untill the rules or stakes of the game are changed. There is a learning curve of player A which could potentially be humans in the future if we can learn more about environments of particals and less about thier actions. This is a plausible solution because we no longer care what the particles are doing, thus we are not limited to just quantums observation problems. I.E double slot experiment. 



#85
Sep2007, 04:43 PM

P: 31

If you know the cats state, the box has been opened (even if the box remains closed). So the box will always remain closed. Unless you smell something funky which opens the closed box that is still shut.




#86
Sep2007, 04:56 PM

P: 17





#87
Sep2007, 05:05 PM

P: 31

I may not know much about this stuff, but if you do not know the cats state, the box remains closed restricting the gain of such knowledge. Like lim x > a .
The funky smell was a joke. 



#88
Sep2007, 08:01 PM

HW Helper
P: 2,566





#89
Sep2107, 01:44 AM

P: 379





#90
Sep2107, 02:05 AM

P: 451

Regards, Dany. P.S. Everyday working experience and knowledge of math is required to have instant feeling what is right and what is wrong in the physical theory. If you do not understand something, ask Demy for example or many others here. Your inability to check yourself disturbs me. Why I should believe that you don’t behave similarly in performing your measurements? In addition, we need explanations of the fine features of the experiments in order to understand their true content and neither you nor other experimentalists here do that. P.P.S. Perhaps, the explanation is: in order the hydrogen atom to be stable. Otherwise, it will be nobody to ask questions. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
1D Box. Paradox?  Quantum Physics  6  
The Twin Paradox Paradox.  Special & General Relativity  3  
Resolving the Barber Paradox and the Russell's Paradox  General Discussion  18  
What is the resolution of the The BugRivet Paradox paradox in special relativity?  Special & General Relativity  4 