From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl
On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply) wrote:
>> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or
>> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according
>> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but
>> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not
>> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.
>>
>> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,
>> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body
>> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay
>> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,
>
> given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
> the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does
> decay have a probability distribution.
"Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"
of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.
If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of
different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there
is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental
role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying
exponentially (and never becoming zero).
NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for
describing large collections of objects or events, just like
it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it
would exist.
> ...
> The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies
> an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?
I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states
that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually
decreases in the total superposition of the state of the
universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom
increases.
> But, at some time the last atom.
Only if you believe in a "collapse"! Otherwise no such time
exists.
> Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency
> will the number of counts ever equal the number of
> atoms.
In those branches of the total superposition describing the
universe where all atoms have decayed, there it equals that
number! Already at the beginning of the counting (but at the
beginning the amplitude of that component in the superposition
is very low.)
> basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve
> this dilemma?
Easy: forget the Copenhagen "interpretation" (which isn't
an interpretation, but a pure *rejection* of the gradual,
unitary time-evolution described by the equations of QM.)
> ... I am still open on this question but
> submit it as a version of the halving distances function
> dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever
> do you ever finally reach the object?"
That answer is known: you do reach it if your halving of the
distance becomes faster at a sufficient rate every time you
do it. And otherwise you don't reach it. Just sum the times..
> Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.
Attacking the description of exponential decay is indeed an
interesting field of study, especially the cases where the
time-span is billions of years. How can QM describe such a
slow process, given all the influence from the environment..
Why isn't the transition stimulated by external radiation,
etc.? But those are just questions within the gradual change
mechanism of the Hilbert space state.
See the references given below Matt O'Dowd's latest video:
--
Jos
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
