From: nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be   
      
   On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:28:44 UTC+2, Phillip Helbig wrote:   
   > In article <23a86ac4-341e-4c8f-94a4-6bd9c17902c4@googlegroups.com>,   
   > Nicolaas Vroom  writes:   
   >   
   > > In the book "In search of Schroedingers cat" at page 203, John Gribbin   
   > > writes: Thew apparatus in the box is arranged so that the detector is   
   > > switched on just long enough so that there is a fift-fifty chance that   
   > > one of the atoms in the radioactive material will decay and that the   
   > > detector will record a particle."   
   > >   
   > > That means you have to perform this experiment first 1000 times   
   > > in order to establish what the half-life is.   
   >   
   > No; you can just use something with a known half-life.   
      
   Consider the most? simple experiment.   
   1. We put a coin in the box. I shake the box.   
   2. Before we open the box is the state of the coin now "both head and tail"?   
   3. Is the coin in a superposition state?  (IMO both no)   
   4. You open the box and you look inside.   
   5. Does that mean that there is a collapse of the wave function?   
   6. You close the box.   
   7. Is the coin (again) in a superposition state?  (IMO no)   
   8. I open the box and I look inside.   
   9. Does that mean that there is (again) a collapse of the wave function?   
      
   Is this experiment trully an experiment with a fifty-fifty chance?   
   NO. The coin can be fake.   
   To be sure you have to perform this experiment first 1000 times.   
   That's why this cannot be a thought experiment.   
      
   > I read today (bonus points if you can guess where) that a better   
   > experiment just puts the cat (in eternal?) sleep.   
      
   In an ad which advertises sleeping pills   
      
   > > Next he writes:   
   > > According to the strict Copenhagen interpretation,   
   > > so in this case the equal probabilities for radioactive decay   
   > > and no radioactive decay should produce a superposition of states (2)".   
   >   
   > Note that this is just standard quantum mechanics and has nothing in   
   > particular to do with the article which started this thread.   
      
   The significance is in the usage of the word "superposition"   
   and in the clearity of the text.   
      
   > > The part near (2) is not clear to me.   
   > > What is clear that when you look in the box, you have a 50% chance   
   > > that the cat is alive and a 50% chance that the cat is dead.   
   > > Because that is the way the experiment is set up.   
   > > As such IMO to claim that the cat before you look is in a superposition   
   > > state is of physical significance.   
   >   
   > Did you mean "of NO physical significance"?   
   Ofcourse.   
      
   > The whole point of this thought experiment is to get rid of "IMO".   
   If you want to get rid of "IMO" than you have to perform real experiments.   
   which are clear and which can be repeated as much as possible.   
   IMO when you study the Copenhagen Interpretation, in the beginning   
   this was the opinion of a small group of people. Some agreed and   
   some disagreed. The purpose of this tread is to show that there are   
   at least some which have different opions, today.   
      
   > It is well known that our intuition often fails when quantum theory is   
   > involved.  Saying "it just ain't so" won't cut it.  The thought   
   > experiment is an obvious extension of the Copenhagen interpretation.   
   > What it means is another question.   
   I prefer to call it a chalenge. The problem is: the Copenhagen is   
   an interpretation of what?   
   Both should be a description of a certain experiment. See below.   
      
      
   > > The part near (1) is not clear to me.   
   > > Interference between water waves is explained because the wave goes   
   > > to both holes.   
   >   
   > This is the Central Mystery of quantum mechanics: repeat the double-slit   
   > experiment with a source (of light, electrons, bucky balls---it doesn't   
   > matter) so weak that only one particle at a time is registered on the   
   > screent.  The same interference pattern builds up over time.  Block one   
   > of the slits, do the experiment again, and the interference pattern goes   
   > away.   
   The problem is, I do not see any mystery in this experiment.   
   There must be a physical explanation.   
   For water waves this is simple. They go through both slits.   
   If their is a statistical difference, between a single electron going   
   through one slit or to two slits (holes) than the next step is to perform   
   the same experiment with different distances between the two holes (rims).   
   I bet there is a difference.   
   That's why this can not be a thought experiment.   
   My understanding is, that what we call one-electron is much more than   
   a simple (point) particle.   
   It can be much more, like a particle surrounded by a cloud of something.   
   Part of this cloud can go through the other hole, which influences its   
   behaviour.   
      
   Anyway to call the one-electron in a superposition state is too simple.   
      
   Nicolaas Vroom.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)