Re: QM Measurement Problem

Hello Gerry:

You wrote:

A particular atom, say the one creating the top serif
of the 'D', can consistently be observed to be in the same place, and it
is not moving anywhere. There is a real sense in which its position is
known exactly, and its momentum is zero. It is living in the classical
world, precisely because of its entanglement with the other atoms.

One certainly can do a series of experiments where the atoms are
proven by observation to be sitting right on top of the 'D'. One
could do another series of experiments to show that the momentum is
zero. One cannot do a single experiment to show that in a measurable
sense, "its position is known exactly, and its momentum is zero"
without violating the uncertainty principle, the variation of the
measurement of the position x times the variation in the measurement
of the momentum px must be greater than the super tiny hbar.

This was an instructive comment:

The atoms in the solid are strongly entangled with others
in their environment - the electrons in your vaguely-described 'cloud',
presumably, are not.

The cloud is both very precise and reproducible. There are many
systems that with their superposition of states have a location where
there is zero probability to find the atom. An experiment can be set
up to measure the probability distribution of the system over space,
and we find that there are places with zero probability. We label
this quantum interference. Unfortunately, we bring with us the notion
of classical interference, where one thing gets together with another
thing destructively. That is not the way quantum systems work -
everything is independent.

You could semi-plausibly have a superposition state that looked like a
cat that you could not tell was alive or dead. It would instantly
collapse into one or the other, or more likely into a very sick cat.
...
So you are taking the classical results observed after opening each box,
and superimposing them. Just what I said. No picture of an observed
superposition state. No indication of interference between dead and
alive states.

This indicates we are not communicating so well on these issues, which
is not uncommon. There is no need for a sick cat state. Nor is there
a need to show interference between the dead and alive states. As
soon as I discuss making a measurement of anything, you slap the label
"classical result", a behavior I find mystifying. The CCD camera at
the end of a two slit interference experiment would appear to fit this
notion of classical result since the signals are either on or off.

So here is your definition:

Classical result = what you get when you open the box and see a dead cat
or a live cat. Nothing more.

Unfortunately, I don't get what you mean. For me, what classical
physics is about is our ability to watch a system, say a live cat,
evolve in time. We can watch a cat go from alive to sick to dead over
a period of observation.

The SSCE I described ("Simplified Schrodinger's Cat Experiment"),
there is no observation you can ever do with the cat transitioning in
time from live to dead. One gets one or the other. The best we can
do to summarize the results is a picture like I provided.

Neat, I see a connection to quantum interference. Earlier I had said
there is no "sick cat" state. That is a state the classical physicist
would expect to see, part of the transition in time from live to
dead. In the precise, repeatable system I set up with a thousand cat
clones, not a single one was sick. It is the omission of expected
states that many find troubling about quantum mechanics.

"Unambiguously live and dead"? What do you mean by that?

The cats in the system are never sick. It is also vital to emphasize
I am talking about _many_ cats, not a single cat. Issues in quantum
theory cannot be understood by reflecting on a solitary cat. One
needs a great many of them, all identical. This is not a multiverse.
It is a system constructed out of lots of cats, half of them standing,
prancing, and playing, the other half stone cold dead. I wish to
collect all my data together of what I can expect to find, and that is
the superposition of live and dead cats, never sick, unambiguously
live and dead.

Doug

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... >instances of Nick seeing the cat respectively dead and alive are the ... what the observer remembered or whether the cat was ... Whatever the result of the measurement to detect superposed ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... >a measurement result to be a physical object. ... >>whether the cat is alive or dead. ... >Nick, but is not yet alive or dead relative to me. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Question for religious parents
    ... the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive. ... consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell ... extension, since it looks like a contradiction is entailed, something ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: What can I do with this info?
    ... When one of our cats brought me a dead mouse a couple years ago, ... My only outside cat was unfortunately put to sleep a couple weeks ago ... She killed so many animals that we ... hundreds of animals she killed/ate was carrying a nasty animal virus, ...
    (alt.2600)
  • Re: QM Measurement Problem
    ... of classical interference, where one thing gets together with another ... That is not the way quantum systems work - ... cat that you could not tell was alive or dead. ... collapse into one or the other, or more likely into a very sick cat. ...
    (sci.physics.research)