Brent,
thanks for the paper recommendations! I will have a look at them.
Cheers,
Günther
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Hello Brent,
>>
>>
>>> That was my point. The SWE indicates that every microscopic event that
>>> happens or doesn't happen stochastically splits the wave function. But
>>> these events don't generally cause a split of Kory or other classical
>>> objects. Those "objects" are not in some pure state anyway. They are
>>> already "fuzzy" and their interaction with the environment keeps the
>>> fuzzy bundle along the classical path. There are microscopic splittings
>>>
>> good that you address this topic, I have also wondered a lot about how
>> superposition/MWI/decoherence transfer to the macroscopic arena.
>> Although I am not so quick to discard "splitting" of macroscopic objects.
>>
>> For instance, you don't have to perform a QM-experiment with explicit
>> setup, looking around is enough - photons hit your eyes with different
>> polarizations; why should no splitting occur here?
>>
> It does in mathematical formalism. But the different splits are still
> very close together and so classically they don't make any observable
> difference - since "you" aren't a pure state in QM the mixture is still
> "you".
>
>> Why only in the case where you perform an up/down-amplification experiment?
>>
>
> Because in that case the split gets amplified enough to make a
> noticeable difference in "you" (and other large macroscopic things like
> instruments).
>> And the experiments of Zeilinger Et al (Superposition of Fullerenes) do
>> suggest that there is no scale at which superpositions stop.
> You mean this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402146 ? I thought
> it showed that any large warm body, even one as small as C70 would
> exhibit decoherence just from it's own interchange of IR photons.
>
>
>> We are only
>> not aware of the other persons/objects due to decoherence.
>>
> Right. Decoherence makes superpositions inaccessible. But my point
> was that you, as a large classical object, are continually being
> entangled with your environment by interactions via photons, etc. This
> makes it impossible to separate out the strands of your superpositions,
> but in most cases it also ensures that the strands stay close together
> along the classical path and so the whole bundle can be regarded as a
> single classical object, "you". Only when micrscopic QM events get
> amplified to create a classical difference will there be an observable
> split of "you", e.g. into the you who saw "up" and the you who saw "down".
>
>> Can you recommend a paper which addresses this question (of macroscopic
>> object splitting)?
>>
>
> There's a very good review article by Schlosshauer:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059
>
> I should qualify all the above by saying that it's how most physicist
> think things will work out - but they haven't really been worked on
> yet. It isn't exactly clear how the classical arises from the quantum -
> it has it's own "white rabbit problem
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3376
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9412067
>
> Brent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Nov 22 2008 - 15:01:18 PST