Re: R: Duplication Thought Experiment Involving Complementarity

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 18:09:33 -0700

>
> scerir wrote:
>
>> It seems also that the complementarity principle is
>>
>> a "smooth" principle.
>>
[GL]

> Yes, this is a difference between the thought experiment and nature.
> Or is it? The fact that we haven't been able to show discreteness in
> QM indeterminacy is no proof that there isn't.


Sorry. I made a mistake. The thought experiment is quantized and not
continuous, just like nature appears to be and complementarity in the
thought experiment is smooth. also just like complementarity in nature.
The quantization involves positions that the copies of captain Kirk can
take, namely the points on the grid. Complementarity involves the shape
of the grid. (square, rectangle, polygon or any arbitrary shape).
Therefore my statement "we haven't been able to show discreteness in QM"
is totally irrelevent in attempting to highlight the differences between
the thought experiment and QM. They are both the same.

However, this fact does not eliminate the fact that the smoothness in
the complementarity in QM is unproven. Correspondingly, in the thought
experiment, the smoothness in complementarity involves the freedom to
pick any shape for the transporter beam -- as long as the total area of
beam spot remains constant. It is conceiveable however, that the shape
of the spot itself could be quantized. For example, one could conceive
of a scenario in which the shape of the spot could be restricted to
rectangles with integral side relationships or to triangles or certain
types of polygons. In the case of nature, however, this is pure
speculation with no experimental evidence.


George
Received on Sat Sep 14 2002 - 18:12:42 PDT