From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 4:34:35 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   I am an experimentalist btw. Well my interpretation of QM   
   is Heisenberg's.  It is a complete statement when all   
   things are considered an abstract reservoir. Here is the   
   meaning of superposition.  I went so far to consider the   
   abstract dam.  And here is the meaning of all transformations   
   being the outcome of QM tunneling.  Is tunneling always   
   probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.   
   The reservoir interpretation is a theorist's verbal   
   communication.   
      
   > > ...   
   > > 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.   
   I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent   
   exponential decay function with a convergent decay.   
   Given a set of atoms of a certain decay rate can you   
   detect the decay of all the atoms? Or is there a probability   
   of detection where sometimes you detect all the atoms decay   
   while sometimes not detecting all transformations.   
   This being the origin of atom decay detection statistics.   
      
      
   > > But, at some time the last atom.   
   > Only if you believe in a "collapse"! Otherwise no such time   
   > exists.   
   Again I was commenting a comment.   
   I am not a theorist so I can't reply.   
   > > 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.)   
   Again: I am not a theorist so I can't reply.   
      
   > > 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.)   
   >   
   Yes we do have a QM theory outlook distinction.   
   > > ... 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..   
   I am not sure if this is an allowed transformation of time.   
   > > 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.   
   The existence of a decay rate this slow is a testament to the   
   dynamic range of measurement.  This is like the mystery to   
   the clarity of the heavens or DNA.   
      
   Transforming exponential decay might be possible.  The   
   atoms always have an integer value and commonly have a real   
   x-axis time value.  Is this allowed?  The time to the last   
   atom just might be termed convergent.  So maybe take this time   
   and divide to integers?  Using a time transform to   
   ensure time units greater than one. I have no clue mathematically   
   on legal restating.   
      
   You do have to consider here the   
   distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic   
   decay constants.  It is basically the origin of the implication   
   of atom set lifetimes. You can have a sample created by a fast   
   pulse of say neutrons, or a case of a constant rate of neutrons   
   for a period, or a case of non-uniform irradiation.  I would   
   submit that priory of the production function is demanded   
   to measure the decay constant.  Just think of knowing such sets   
   distributed in the whole sample of production.  There is   
   no a priory of location.  A set of atom sets confounds the systems   
   decay function measure.   
      
   So waiting around for N=1 to decay is an important interpretation   
   to consider.  Given n=1 you can not measure the decay constant. You   
   can not measure a time of creation. You can not infer the existence   
   of a decay product's causal event.  A unit one has no measurable   
   statistical event distribution. Maybe waiting around for a zero event   
   is a waste of time.   
      
      
   >   
   > See the references given below Matt O'Dowd's latest video:   
   >    
   >   
   > --   
   > Jos   
   Thanks the site has a great recitation of the outlooks of   
   QM in its early origins.  One of my points of view is that   
   collapse allows a very special class of information.   
   It can not alter the thermodynamics of the system other   
   than a spatial distribution.  A human using the knowledge   
   is not subject t   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)