- 16
- 0
I guess you could, but the probability would be 0.Using Quantum Mechanics is it possible to calculate the probability that conservation of energy does not hold
I guess you could, but the probability would be 0.Using Quantum Mechanics is it possible to calculate the probability that conservation of energy does not hold
Great answer. Momentum is mv, kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2 wouldnt HUP imply uncertainty in energy because of uncertainty in momentum? How can energy be conserved and still be uncertain?I guess you could, but the probability would be 0.
Well... you can't violate the expectation value for energy anyway!Great answer. Momentum is mv, kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2 wouldnt HUP imply uncertainty in energy because of uncertainty in momentum? How can energy be conserved and still be uncertain?
What do you mean by the expectation value for energy? Can you please elaborate?Well... you can't violate the expectation value for energy anyway!
The average energy over a large number of measurements. The 'expected' energy.What do you mean by the expectation value for energy? Can you please elaborate?
You seem to have misunderstood my point, both in the sentence you quoted, and in the my entire post. In the sentence quoted, the "cat" is not a cat at all -- it is a photon or electron -- experiments have been performed which indicate that the photon or electron is in a superposition (humor me when I say superposition since strictly speaking we don't know if the particle is in a superposition, we only know it behaves as if it were). The argument I presented IS the idea you have articulated so many times, that there is a difference between microscopic and macroscopic. That is premise 1, reproduced here for your reading convenience:The Schrodinger cat experiment does not indicate that the cat is in superposition. Is is certainly not experimental fact that the cat is in superposition.gamma5772 said:It is experimental fact, as has been pointed out, that for microscopic objects, the Schrodinger cat experiment indicates that the cat (photon, electron, what have you) actually is in a superposition.
People seem to have a very difficult time understanding what the point of the experiment is. (Don't take this as offencive!) It simply serves to illustrate (as I have said too many times in this thread) the difference between the quantum world and the macroscopic world; When does a measurement take place? If you don't look at a far away planet is it's weather/clouds in a massive superposition of all possibilities until a human comes by to look at it? Unlikely (what's so special about a human?); so when does it collapse?
I, and the MWI, reject P1. We will discuss this in a second.gamma5772 said:P1. It violates experience and intuition to have a macroscopic object in a quantum superposition. ("I've never seen a cat in a superposition before!").
I think you are misunderstanding decoherence and the MWI.Decoherence (in the way that you mean it with 'many worlds') is an attempt to allow objects to remain in superposition 'post measurement' while still seemingly collapsing. This may be true, and the whole universe may be in superposition, but it would still have to behave effectively as if it wasn't. This is because we don't see objects in superposition. So if they are, it must be suppressed immensely (we don't ever see two cats).
More importantly, Discoherence has nothing to say about WHEN a measurement takes place. (when do the worlds split?)
Now, here's a point of confusion which you bring up ("we don't ever see two cats") -- the cat is in a superposition, so why doesn't anyone see the cat as in a superposition? Well, the scientist saw the cat in a superposition, and look what happened to him! Now he's in a superposition too.gamma5772 said:How would the cat experiment work? The cat would be in a quantum superposition of alive and dead (let's assume it is perfectly isolated from the outside world). When the scientist observes the cat, he would be in a superposition of observing an alive cat and observing a dead cat. When the scientist is recounting his experiment, he is in a superposition of publishing a paper saying he observed an alive cat, and of publishing a paper saying he observed a dead cat.
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. Just a couple of remarks:<...>