Freethought & Rationalism Archive

emphryio · 06-24-2002, 06:26 AM

I think this particular breakthrough is huge and the little coverage it has received, reassures me of the stupidity of the masses.

liquid · 06-24-2002, 06:33 AM

Learnt my quantum from books and magazines mostly, so I am afraid that I am not too hot on web sources. It is, as always, worth looking at the new scientist and scientific american archives. NS in particular produced a great free booklet outlining QM for laypeople... perhaps there is a PDF copy around?

excreationist · 06-24-2002, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluenose:
Alain Aspect showed EPR entanglement in 1982, so I put: EPR Aspect 1982 in Google and it said there were 1900 plus references. Lots of them in other languages <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

You could do a search for EPR quantum - other languages probably wouldn't use the word "quantum". You can also do an advanced search for webpages that are only in English.

The <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp" target="_blank">New Scientist Website</a> has many articles about the quantum world including ones about teleportation.

Michael Ledo · 06-29-2002, 02:08 PM

Oh great! Now this stuff. I am still trying to figure out if the F@#$in' cat is alive or dead.

liquid · 06-29-2002, 02:57 PM

Until it is measured, the cat exists in a part-dead, part alive quantum state. Of course, we dont' know what that really means. But then if you look up the Copenhagen interpretation, we're not even sure if we need to know!

beausoleil · 06-29-2002, 03:07 PM

Suppose one modifies the experiment in the light of the animal rights movement. Instead of a cat, one gets in the box oneself and closes the lid. The apparatus is set up so that you have no way of knowing the device has functioned, and when the quantum decay takes place death will be instantaneous, so that when death comes it will not be preceded by prior knowledge.

Now suppose the decay has a half life of 20 minutes. I suggest that if you sit in the box for one day and emerge unscathed you would have good grounds for accepting the 'many worlds' interpretation.

I'm not exactly sure how it works in the Copenhagen interpretation, since only one outcome is observable

Anyone believe in 'many worlds' that much? Or want to find out that much?

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]

Coragyps · 06-29-2002, 05:19 PM

That's like I was tellin' my friend Randy the other day. I said, "Randy, if you keep dippin' that Copenhagen it's gonna kill ya."

Answerer · 06-29-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
Until it is measured, the cat exists in a part-dead, part alive quantum state. Of course, we dont' know what that really means. But then if you look up the Copenhagen interpretation, we're not even sure if we need to know!

Well, frankly speaking, I don't believe in the 'absolute power' of the observer to determine a probabilistic event as described in the copenhagen interpretation. Furthermore, the 'memory storage system' as described in the many world interpretion is also far from being a reasonable interpretion to me.
Anyway, I can't any reason and usage for the creating all those interpretions, why can't we just accept the randomness motion of the quantum world instead of making them deterministic.

Michael Ledo · 06-30-2002, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beausoleil:
Suppose one modifies the experiment in the light of the animal rights movement. Instead of a cat, one gets in the box oneself and closes the lid. The apparatus is set up so that you have no way of knowing the device has functioned, and when the quantum decay takes place death will be instantaneous, so that when death comes it will not be preceded by prior knowledge.

Now suppose the decay has a half life of 20 minutes. I suggest that if you sit in the box for one day and emerge unscathed you would have good grounds for accepting the 'many worlds' interpretation.

I'm not exactly sure how it works in the Copenhagen interpretation, since only one outcome is observable

Anyone believe in 'many worlds' that much? Or want to find out that much?

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]

What cat in the box? I am talking about that little F@#$er on by back porch. It never moves. It just sits there.

echidna · 06-30-2002, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
Anyway, I can't any reason and usage for the creating all those interpretions, why can't we just accept the randomness motion of the quantum world instead of making them deterministic.

People used to say the same thing about the weather and those pesky meteorologists �

06-29-2002, 03:07 PM	#16
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	Suppose one modifies the experiment in the light of the animal rights movement. Instead of a cat, one gets in the box oneself and closes the lid. The apparatus is set up so that you have no way of knowing the device has functioned, and when the quantum decay takes place death will be instantaneous, so that when death comes it will not be preceded by prior knowledge. Now suppose the decay has a half life of 20 minutes. I suggest that if you sit in the box for one day and emerge unscathed you would have good grounds for accepting the 'many worlds' interpretation. I'm not exactly sure how it works in the Copenhagen interpretation, since only one outcome is observable Anyone believe in 'many worlds' that much? Or want to find out that much? [ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2002, 06:26 AM	#11
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	I think this particular breakthrough is huge and the little coverage it has received, reassures me of the stupidity of the masses.

06-24-2002, 06:33 AM	#12
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Learnt my quantum from books and magazines mostly, so I am afraid that I am not too hot on web sources. It is, as always, worth looking at the new scientist and scientific american archives. NS in particular produced a great free booklet outlining QM for laypeople... perhaps there is a PDF copy around?

06-29-2002, 02:08 PM	#14
Michael Ledo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SC Posts: 49	Oh great! Now this stuff. I am still trying to figure out if the F@#$in' cat is alive or dead.

06-29-2002, 02:57 PM	#15
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Until it is measured, the cat exists in a part-dead, part alive quantum state. Of course, we dont' know what that really means. But then if you look up the Copenhagen interpretation, we're not even sure if we need to know!

06-29-2002, 05:19 PM	#17
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	That's like I was tellin' my friend Randy the other day. I said, "Randy, if you keep dippin' that Copenhagen it's gonna kill ya."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.