Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/19/2017 6:57 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 8:33:31 PM UTC-7, 
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:




On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

If the physics of both regions is identical, and the
observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we
can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the
argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially
infinite at that time? TIA, AG



If it's infinite and you multiply it by an infinitesimal scale
factor...it can still be infinite.

Brent


I could be fixated on an erroneous pov, but if the observable and
unobservable regions obey the same laws of physics, and the former
is getting progressively smaller as we go back in time -- both as
spatial extent and as space-time -- for either to be infinite at
t=0, via tunneling or whatever, seems to suggest a discontinuity.
Or going the other way, from infinite at the tunneling or creation
"moment", to finite in virtually no time duration, is equally hard
to process. AG


So is it your view the universe starts out flat, tunnels through the 
vacuum as an infinite spatial hyperplane, and the expansion just 
means. for example, that the average distance between galaxies has 
been increasing, from their formation until present? AG


I'm not a cosmologist, but it's a possible view.

Brent

--
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.

LIGO does it again

[John Clark]

LIGO announced they've detected ​another Black Hole merger. On June 7 2017
Black Holes of 7 and 12 solar masses collided producing a 18 solar mass
Black Hole and a solar mass of energy in the form of Gravitational Waves.
It happened a billion years ago and these are the smallest Black Holes that
LIGO has yet found.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05578

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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 8:33:31 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is 
>> astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you 
>> have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is 
>> spatially infinite at that time? TIA, AG 
>>
>>>
>> If it's infinite and you multiply it by an infinitesimal scale 
>> factor...it can still be infinite.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I could be fixated on an erroneous pov, but if the observable and 
> unobservable regions obey the same laws of physics, and the former is 
> getting progressively smaller as we go back in time -- both as spatial 
> extent and as space-time -- for either to be infinite at t=0, via tunneling 
> or whatever, seems to suggest a discontinuity.  Or going the other way, 
> from infinite at the tunneling or creation "moment", to finite in virtually 
> no time duration, is equally hard to process. AG
>

So is it your view the universe starts out flat, tunnels through the vacuum 
as an infinite spatial hyperplane, and the expansion just means. for 
example, that the average distance between galaxies has been increasing, 
from their formation until present? AG 

-- 
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.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM, John Mikes  wrote:


> ​> ​
> Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
> their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude
>

​
Easy, just change from "if X and Y then Z" to "if X and Y then usually Z".
In fact that is exactly what scientists have been doing in the real world
from day one.
​
I don't see why this bothers you so much, after all there is no logical
reason ANY event must have a cause so we should count ourselves lucky that
at least some of them do. And it's not as if we have a choice in the matter,
​
we know for a fact that the
​ Bell inequality is violated so if you insistent determinism then thing
are non-local or things don't exist in a definite state when you're not
looking at them or both. And it gets worse, ​more recently it was
discovered that the
Leggett–Garg inequality
​ is also violated and that means those non-local forces must be even
stranger, not only are they unaffected by distance and carry information
faster than light but the future can change the past and the arrow of time
is dead. Do you want determinism THAT bad?​


> *​> ​Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no,
>

​Bur statistics is necessary and it works, and that is exactly what you'd
expect to happen if sometimes things are deterministic and sometimes they
are not.​

 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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:10:56 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>>
> ​>> ​
>>> The MWI people don't have to assume anything because 
>>> ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t
>>> he Schrodinger 
>>> ​Wave ​E
>>> quation 
>>> ​ about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that 
>>> somehow it does. ​
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> It's not just an assumption.  It's an observation.  The SE alone didn't 
>> explain the observation, hence the additional ideas.
>>
>
> The
> ​ ​
> only assumption the MWI makes is that the Schrodinger Wave Equation
> ​ ​
> is correct, and the
> ​ ​
> Schrodinger Wave Equation
> ​ ​
> says it never collapses.  
> ​So if we accept that it is indeed correct then observation​ leads us to 
> conclude that the Multiverse must exist. 
> The only reason the Copenhagen people assume the SWE is not correct is 
> because they don't like the Multiverse, although they are unable to 
> pinpoint where it goes wrong, they wave their hands and use vague words 
> like "observation" and "measurement" but can't say exactly what it takes to 
> do either.  Copenhagen starts
> ​
> with the assumption there is no Multiverse and then 
> ​tries​
> ​
> to work backward to jury-rig 
> ​the ​
> equation to keep the parts they like but get rid of the Multiverse, but 
> they've made a 
> ​dog's breakfast out of it. ​
>
>   John K Clark
>

Since the evolution of the wf appears non linear when the measurement 
occurs, isn't this empirical evidence that the SE does NOT apply at 
measurement time? AG 

 

>
>  
>
>
>  
>

-- 
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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:21:36 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> *​> ​Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name 
>> indicates, based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be 
>> measured, in this case in other worlds. I reject this hypothesis. What I do 
>> concede is that in the case of the Multiverse of String Theory, if time is 
>> infinite and the possible universes finite -- 10^500 -- all possible 
>> universes will be, or have been, realized. AG*
>>
>
> ​
> So what are we arguing about? 10^500 may not be infinite 
> ​but​
> ​
> that is certainly many many worlds
> ​, and
>  in our universe of only 10^80 atoms 
> ​its ​
> not too far from the MWI idea that everything 
> ​that​
> ​
> can happen does happen.
>

Again you're conflating the Multiverse of String Theory with the Many 
Worlds of MWI. In the former case, we have 10^500 landscape solutions, so 
IF time is infinite it's plausible that all will be EVENTUALLY realized; 
not unlike a 500 sigma event for an electron impacting the screen in a 
double slit experiment. No humans involved; infinite time. OTOH, in the 
case of MWI, you claim that the HUMAN ACTION of shooting an electron at the 
slits in the same experiment AUTOMATICALLY, NECESSARILY, AND 
INSTANTANEOUSLY CREATES a possibly uncountable number of universes. Even 
for countable case, still ridiculous IMO. AG

>

-- 
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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/19/2017 10:10 AM, John Clark wrote:



On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:



​>> ​
The MWI people don't have to assume anything because
​there is absolutely nothing in ​t
he Schrodinger
​Wave ​E
quation
​ about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to
assume that somehow it does. ​


​> ​
It's not just an assumption.  It's an observation.  The SE alone
didn't explain the observation, hence the additional ideas.


The
​ ​
only assumption the MWI makes is that the Schrodinger Wave Equation
​ ​
is correct, and the
​ ​
Schrodinger Wave Equation
​ ​
says it never collapses.
​


It also says it never evolves into orthogonal subspaces.

Brent

So if we accept that it is indeed correct then observation​ leads us 
to conclude that the Multiverse must exist.
The only reason the Copenhagen people assume the SWE is not correct is 
because they don't like the Multiverse, although they are unable to 
pinpoint where it goes wrong, they wave their hands and use vague 
words like "observation" and "measurement" but can't say exactly what 
it takes to do either.  Copenhagen starts

​
with the assumption there is no Multiverse and then
​tries​
​
to work backward to jury-rig
​the ​
equation to keep the parts they like but get rid of the Multiverse, 
but they've made a

​dog's breakfast out of it. ​

  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.


--
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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM,  wrote:

*​> ​Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name indicates,
> based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be measured, in
> this case in other worlds. I reject this hypothesis. What I do concede is
> that in the case of the Multiverse of String Theory, if time is infinite
> and the possible universes finite -- 10^500 -- all possible universes will
> be, or have been, realized. AG*
>

​
So what are we arguing about? 10^500 may not be infinite
​but​
​
that is certainly many many worlds
​, and
 in our universe of only 10^80 atoms
​its ​
not too far from the MWI idea that everything
​that​
​
can happen does happen.

​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.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
​>> ​
>> The MWI people don't have to assume anything because
>> ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t
>> he Schrodinger
>> ​Wave ​E
>> quation
>> ​ about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that
>> somehow it does. ​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> It's not just an assumption.  It's an observation.  The SE alone didn't
> explain the observation, hence the additional ideas.
>

The
​ ​
only assumption the MWI makes is that the Schrodinger Wave Equation
​ ​
is correct, and the
​ ​
Schrodinger Wave Equation
​ ​
says it never collapses.
​So if we accept that it is indeed correct then observation​ leads us to
conclude that the Multiverse must exist.
The only reason the Copenhagen people assume the SWE is not correct is
because they don't like the Multiverse, although they are unable to
pinpoint where it goes wrong, they wave their hands and use vague words
like "observation" and "measurement" but can't say exactly what it takes to
do either.  Copenhagen starts
​
with the assumption there is no Multiverse and then
​tries​
​
to work backward to jury-rig
​the ​
equation to keep the parts they like but get rid of the Multiverse, but
they've made a
​dog's breakfast out of it. ​

  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.