Re: Decoherence does not help explain collapse of the wave function



On Jul 14, 1:14 am, "Neil B." <neil_del...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Trish Raggens" <trishragg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:025db7a6-de5e-44fa-86aa-37834a6f1462@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 13, 9:16 am, "Neil B." <neil_del...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

Thanks for the reply, Trish. [If I leave out quoting, it's from failure
of my OE to add the chev-brackets] I have an open mind but am not yet on
board with the psychic angle. However, it may offer some insight into
unusual experiences etc. I guess you already went tohttp://www.quantumbrain.org/etc.

Also, your statement "superpositions still occur but are lost in the
massive entanglement between objects and environment." is not, pardon
the pun, a coherent notion. It is just the sort of post-modernish
fluff I usually hear from deconauts. I guess you picked it up
in grad school. The phrase "lost in" doesn't really say or explain
anything. It is not rigorous, it sounds like psychobabble applied to
physics. I mean, both states are still there, and yet we only observe
one outcome. And furthermore, we can have superpositions of orthogonal
basis states - they supposedly don't even interfere anyway, but the
collapse will select one out and make the other go poof. (Well, even the
term "interference" is sloppy. It is a way of talking about the results
of the squaring of the net amplitude superposition, when those results
show different phases at different places or times. But the rigorous
expression would be, "superposition of amplitudes." That happens anytime
the waves are together, regardless of how consistent their phases are.
Question for deconauts: do you believe in superposition, or not? And if
"yes", then it shouldn't matter whether this or that revealing pattern
is formed thereby. That's just an ensemble characterization. The theory
says the waves are all still there  together, until some weird
cosmic pluck pulls out an outcome.

I was just half kidding on the psychic connections. Anyway.
I own these two books about Decoherence:

Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition

http://www.amazon.com/Decoherence-Classical-Transition-Frontiers-Collection/dp/3540357734/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247535605&sr=8-1

Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory

http://www.amazon.com/Decoherence-Appearance-Classical-Quantum-Theory/dp/3540003908/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247535605&sr=8-2

Have you read them? If not, read them first to be well acquainted
with the concepts like Quantum Darwism, Selection of the
Preferred Basis. Einselection, etc. Note that decoherence is
kinda a new field that veteran physicists (Copenhagenly trained)
like Uncle Al has not read about as folks like him are trained in
1970s
physics right up to the electroweak unification which they have
mastered. Beyond it are speculatory physics like string theory and
decoherence. But decoherence makes sense. Wave function
collapse are more hocus focus if you would reflect on it.

Later,

Trish
.