From: Ken S. Tucker on
On May 3, 6:36 pm, Bob_for_short <vladimir.kalitvian...(a)wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
> On 3 mai, 05:54, "Rich L." <ralivings...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Another related question has to do with setting up this superposition
> > state. Suppose we do it via collision with an excited atom that is
> > excited to E=(E1+E2)/2, and after the collision the prepared atom then
> > has this energy as a superposition state. Would that work?
>
> No, if the transferred energy is not sufficient to excite E2, the
> latter will not be present in the superposition (effect of threshold).
> If the transferred energy is larger than E2, both E1 and E2 will be
> present (and maybe some other levels allowed with the energy
> conservation law).

> > > > Is the uncertainty one of knowledge or reality?
>
> > > This is a drawback of our tendency to simplify complex things. There
> > > are things that cannot be taken apart (disassembled, demounted, taken
> > > down to pieces, separated in time and space).
>
> > And yet our concept of conservation of energy is considered to apply
> > at all instances in time, and for all observers (with their own
> > concept of an instant in time). How can the universe deal with an
> > uncertaintly in energy over a macroscopic time (e.g. greater than the
> > Uncertaintly Principle)?
>
> Consider collision of two atoms. when at large distance from each
> other, they have certaing kinetic and internal energies. While
> collision the total energy is numerically the same but it is
> impossible to attribute some parts of it to some parts of colliding
> system (tha atoms "merge"). After collision the total energy is
> somehow distributed between the collision products that may be
> asymptotically well defined with their kinetic and internal energies.
> So the energy conservation law is applicable at each instant of time
> but its additiveness is not always. The timing is important and it may
> be determined not only with atomic sizes but also with the wave packet
> sizes. The latter are mostly determined with the preparation device.

Minor point for interest.
Bob wrote, "preparation device".
Rocket engines, heated gases colliding with a surface, that appears
to use the outer electron shells in repulsion is a realistic device,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_(rocket_engine)

An obvious macroscopic application. I'd interprete Bob's
"additiveness is not always" as being a kin to when the actual walls
of the Combustion Chamber begin to vaporize as the exterior electron
shells in the CC are over heated, which - by common sense - would
suck energy by the vaporization process.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker