On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:00:22 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:17 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > >> Any macro object is in a definite state >> > > That is incorrect. An electron an be in a single quantum state with just > one associated wave function, 2 electrons can do the sane thing in > superconductors they're called "Cooper pairs", and the same can also be > true for several million atoms in a Bose–Einstein condensate but you have > to cool them to less than a millionth of a degree above absolute zero; but > all the 10^25 atoms in a baseball have their own different wave function > because unlike the atoms in a Bose–Einstein condensate all the atoms in a > baseball are NOT entangled with each other, if they were a baseball would > exhibit the same weird behavior as an electron. That would certainly make > for a more interesting game and might even be enough to turn me into a > baseball fan. > > Two atoms are quantum entangled entangled if they have the same wave > function but it's a delicate condition and must be carefully isolated from > the environment, the more atoms the more delicate it is, 10^25 atoms is so > delicate we never see it. > > > >> Multiverse arose in the context of string theory, after Everett's MWI. >> The difference between Multiverse and MWI is striking and obvious. >> > > Explain to me how > Everett's MWI > can work without the Multiverse. The fact that string theory also needs > a Multiverse just give more support to Everett, or at least it would if > there were any experimental evidence to indecate string theory was true, > > > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> For example, we know that irrational numbers exist >>>> >>> >>> >> >>> Do we? >>> >> >> > >> O >> >> f course. It has been proven that pi and e are not rational. >> > > Yes, in the language of mathematics there are stories about rational and > irrational numbers and there are also stories about pi and e and you can > prove that the stories abut irrationality are consistent with pi and e. And > in the language of English there are stories about Harry Potter and it can > be proven that Harry's aunt is named Petunia, but there is no proof that > harry or Petunia exist in the physical world and there is no proof > pi or e (not to be confused with the approximations of pi and e) have any > effect on the laws of physics. > > > >> It's also been proven that the irrationals are dense in the reals; that >> is, many "more" irrationals than rationals; >> > > And the stories also say there are many more non-computable Real > numbers > than computable Real numbers, the set of computable numbers is not dense > on the reals, its countably infinite with a cardinality of > Aleph-naught > . If a number is not computable, that is to say unlike pi or e then is > no procedure for even approximating it then I don't see how it cold be of > any importance to physics. And I say again Many Worlds is a theory about > physics not mathematics. > > What about the rational numbers, does physics need all of them? > The answer in not certain but we already have good reason to suspect that > neither time nor space is continuous, although although we won't know for > sure until we understand quantum gravity. > > >> >> >>> there might be a infinite number of Turing Machines in the Multiverse >>> but they couldn't communicate with each other and none of them would have a >>> infinite amount of tape. So any real Turing Machine in the Multiverse is >>> certain to eventually stop, not for any software reason but because of >>> hardware failure. Eventual any real Turing machine will get a command like >>> "move the read/wright head one box to the left write a 1 in the box and >>> then change to state 6.02*10^23" but it will be unable to move one box to >>> the left became it is already at the end of the tape and there is no more >>> matter in the observable universe to extend it. If no physical process can >>> produce them that >>> seems to me a pretty good indication that the physical universe doesn't >>> need irrational numbers (or even real numbers). Many Worlds is a theory >>> about physics not mathematics so the philosophic debate about the existence >>> or nonexistence of irrational numbers >>> has no bearing on existence or nonexistence of >>> Many Worlds. >>> >> >> > >> I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about Turing machines to comment. >> > > All you need to know is that a Turing Machine is the simplest most > fundamental form of computer that operates according to the known laws of > physics, so if a Turning Machine can't do something then no computer can, > and a Turing Machine can't calculate a single irrational number, not even > if it makes use of all the matter in the observable universe, not even if > it has infinite time to work on it. And that makes me think irrational > numbers are not fundamentally important to the laws of physics or to our > physical world. >
*Essentially, all calculations and predictions in physics are approximations. Thus, the fact that a Turing Machine can't do an exact calculation in finite time seems irrelevant. Moreover, if you claim irrational numbers are not fundamentally important for physics, how do you account for the fact that PI comes up in Maxwell's equations and Einstein's field equations? AG* > >> HOWEVER, if you prefer, forget about number theory and consider the >> FINITE AGE of our universe, the observable and unobservable regions. It's >> been expanding for 13.8 billion years, so its spatial extent must be >> FINITE. This undercuts your argument about infinite repetitions of >> whatever. >> > > Right now the most popular Cosmological theory is inflation, if it's > correct then the Big Bang was just a trivial occurrence that happened 13.8 > billion years ago in a infinitely old Multiverse. > Alan Guth postulated a inflation field that decayed away in a process > somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the > universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde > proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand > faster than it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde showed > that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other > volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one > universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in > 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 > others, and it goes on forever. So what we call "The Big Bang" isn't the > beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular > part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big > Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending process. Maybe in > one of those universes Schrodinger's cat is dead and in another the cat is > alive. > > > It's interesting that first > Everett > needed the Multiverse to explain quantum weirdness, and then > independently the string people discovered they needed the Multiverse in > their struggle to develop quantum gravity, and then independent of the > previous two the inflation people needed the Multiverse to explain the Big > Bang. It seems like its all coming together, it makes me think the > Multiverse might actually exist. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
