From the onset of the quantum mechanics a polemics started about its
superposition principle. Is it specific for microobjects or if it is
analogous to the superposition in classical systems? As an argument of
the Copenhagen School that it is impossible to reduce a state vector on
one from two possible states the famous Schr=F6dinger's cat was used.
To show troubles connected with measurements, Schr=F6dinger proposed as
a model a cat in a box with an vial with hydrogencyanide. We do not
know, if the cat is alive or dead, until the modern deux ex machina, an
observer will not open the box reducing possibilities, killing or
saving the animal. This picturesque example did not yet loose its
convincing vigor.
I proposed an innovation of the cat as an cyborg. A living cat
superposed with a dead apparatus, say a breathing machine. A cat with
the destroyed breathing centrum in its brain can not live without the
apparatus, it is partially alive and partially dead. Moral dilemmas
connected with the switching off different life supporting apparatuses
in human medicine testify that such states are real.
The modern deus ex machina created the cat living in a superposition
state by macroscopic means. When we compare it with the Schr=F6dinger's
cat, we can say that the superposition is identical in macroscopic as
well as in microscopic cat and thus there is no difference between
application of the superposition principle in the quantum mechanics and
in real life.
My paper was denied by Zahradn=EDk and Jungwirth. Especially my
explanation, that we do not understand fully properties of
multidimensional spaces irritated them.
I wrote an April fool paper about properties of complete graphs as
about mock chemical compounds as an hexafingerane is, too. The trigonal
bipyramide, formed by touching 3 fingers of both hands (the complete
graph K(5)) is a model of a 5 dimensional plane (4 dimensional body).
Its 5 four dimensional sides (tetrahedrons) form a double cover of the
inside of the simplex.
It is a suitable box, for the Schr=F6dinger's cat. If the cat is in the
center of the box and an three dimensional observer tries to find its
position, determined by coordinates (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) of the simplex
(vertices being on the orbit 5, 04), he must use one of three
dimensional sides as the reference. Then he determines the position of
the central point as a linear combinations of points on sides of the
simplex (0, 5/3, 5/3, 5/3, 0) or (5/2, 0, 0, 0, 5/2).
These points coincide with the inside point. The measurement did not
changed the observed system, only a different result was found at each
measurement. The superposition principle is just a result of properties
of the space we are living in.
This explanation confirms my thesis about problems with
multidimensionality of our World. As Plato's slaves we are not able to
acknowledge it.
Introducing an observer in physics is similar to introduction of
central perspective in the art. An artist need not to paint what he
sees, but what he knows and he can observe his object from different
stands simultaneously.
One from the most discussed philosophical problems of quantum mechanics
was the observer problem, that the measuring changes the observed
system. I think that till now bad examples were considered.
Take a relation between a book and its reader. There are two distinct
systems with a sharp borderline between. The reader can not be a part
of a book, but the inverse relation can be violated, a reader can know
a book by heart and the book is an unseparable part of him.
Now, there are at least two different ways, how books are studied.
Linguistics studies books similarly as physicists wanted to study the
book of Nature, by counting events of different kinds without violating
a letter in the book. There is none observer needed. In second kind
studies, an action of a book on a reader is studied by different
methods, for example by nuclear resonance tomography, by measuring of
swelling of some sensitive organs or simply by asking what impressions
the reader had at reading. Here we need a reader because we study him
and not the book itself. Linguistic measurements can be repeated
because the book remains unchanged, but we can not reproduce an
observation of the effect of a book on the reader, at repeated
readings, he will have different reactions, and different readers have
not identical reactions.
It can be objected that the example with books is bad, because books
remain intact at studies of both arts. Good, we can study food, its
effect on an observer and on consumer. It is surely different if one
merely see food or if he eats it. In the later case the food is
destroyed similarly as a microparticle by a counter.
We can not study Nature without its observing, but we can guess how it
behaves when it is unobserved.
kunzmilan
.
|
