...
} > If this extremal decomposition was not unique, you couldn't
} > determine what a 'pure' state was, it would be anything you wanted.
}
} I wrote already few times that pure state is unambiguosly defined in
} QM.
}
} > The problem is the 'pure' state was that it was defined in
} > statistical mechanics
}
} Pure state is defined in QM, not in statistical mechanics, and it is
} not defined statistically.
ca314159@bestweb.net writes:
>
> I don't know why you are aloof though to the more impressive
> statement that Young's apparatus, (Feynman vol 3.) a exemplar of
> all that is QM is simply a Fuzzy logical "OR" operation.
Because your statement is wrong, perhaps?
> Feynman gives
>
> I12 = I1 + I1 + 2*sqrt(I1*I2)* cos(theta) (1)
>
> which is modelling to the probability equation:
>
> P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B) (2)
>
> the interference term of (1) is simply the dot product of the
> amplitudes |A|*|B|*cos(theta) and is therefore a measure of
> their degree of orthogonality.
Except that you don't normally get a negative number for P(A and B)
in probability theory, particularly in the kind used in fuzzy logic.
That is why QM is an _exotic_ probability theory, and why you cannot
un-mix a superposition as Mati and others correctly point out.
-- James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.