From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl   
      
   On 21/01/26 12:02 AM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:   
   > 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   
   >>>>   ...   
      ...   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction   
   gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one   
   region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the   
   other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about   
   that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture. Even   
   there, the game of chance would only start when you 'measure'   
   what has happened to the wavefunction, the tunneling process   
   itself would still be by the analytical Schrodinger equation.   
      
   > The reservoir interpretation is a theorist's verbal   
   > communication.   
      
   Unclear where in the discussion we had a reservoir interpretation   
   (but I'm no fan of interpretations anyway, let's just stick to the   
   description as it is, given by the Hamiltonian!)   
      
   >>> ...   
   >>> 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?   
      
   I agree that the question is interesting, for several reasons.   
   The following three possibilities could perhaps be tested:   
      
   1)   
       It is all governed by the initial state of the decaying   
   atom, so slight deviations in its wavefunction from the ideal,   
   pure, excited state, will determine how long it takes before   
   the decay occurs. Much like when you put a pencil on its tip:   
   the amount of deviation from the pure vertical determines how   
   long it takes before it topples over.   
      
   2)   
       It is governed by external influences. Like the pencil   
   again, but now in a drafty room (or with vibrations in the   
   building) where those external influences create the slight   
   deviations and then it's back to the previous situation.   
      
   3)   
       Something inherently probabilistic is happening. Even if   
   the initial state is pure, and external influences are absent,   
   the decay will still occur.   
      
   If it is 1), then a special procedure, or special treatment   
   of the atoms (to make the excited state extremely pure, like   
   putting the pencil very close to vertical) should suppress   
   all 'quick-decay' cases.   
   If it is 2) then extra environmental disturbances should   
   lead to a quicker decay.   
   If it is 3) then the only proof for it would be to rule out   
   (without any loopholes) that it is 1) or 2).   
      
   Of course we know that in many cases 2) will occur, stimulated   
   emission can easily be shown. Also 1) is in fact observed as   
   the Quantum Zeno effect by which you can 'freeze' a system   
   for some limited time, so indeed the 'quick-decay' cases are   
   then suppressed.   
      
   Still there may be cases where it is in fact possible to show   
   experimentally that it can't be either 1) or 2). Personally I   
   wouldn't mind if such cases can *not* be found (and QM is   
   simply deterministic, and no interpretation or augmentation   
   is needed). But it's certainly something to search for..   
      
   >   ...   
   > You do have to consider here the   
   > distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic   
   > decay constants.   
      
   We seem to agree on the thing to look at! (Although it could be   
   that you will perhaps prefer another outcome, but in science that   
   does not matter..)   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)