date:20191003

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:04:08 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *how did the extra matter come from?*
>
>
> Unlike the second law of thermodynamics which is based on logic and 
> observation the first law is based on observation alone, every time we test 
> it in a lab it seems to work, but it has never been tested at the very 
> largest scale, that of the cosmos. To answer your question the extra matter 
> comes from absolutely nothing and thus its true, Many Worlds violates the 
> law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that 
> regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories violate the conservation of 
> mass/energy, they MUST. Noether's Theorem says if things generally look 
> about the same from one time period to another then matter/energy is 
> conserved, but in our expanding accelerating universe things do *NOT* 
> look the same from one eon to another so energy can't be completely 
> conserved. Mass/energy is only approximately conserved and to the same 
> extent that at the largest scale the universe looks approximately the same 
> from one minute to the next.
>
> And Einstein told us in the early 1920s that if empty space contains a 
> residual vacuum energy in the form of negative pressure (see below) it 
> would cause the universe to expand, that is to say more empty space would 
> be created which would contain more vacuum energy which would create more 
> empty space etc. If vacuum energy exists and has a value of 10^-10 joules 
> per cubic metre it would explain why our universe is expanding, One joule 
> is only enough energy to light up a one watt lightbulb for one second so 
> that's a very low energy density, but there is a lot of empty space and it 
> would be enough to get the job done.  
>  
> Note: The  vacuum energy density is constant because there is nothing 
> around that would cause it to change. And the pressure is negative because 
> if you had a cylinder of vacuum in your lab and you pulled out a piston 
> containing it that would create more vacuum and thus more resulting vacuum 
> energy would be created, and that energy must have come from the cylinder. 
> So if the vacuum wants to pull the piston in your lab back into the 
> cylinder then the pressure must be negative.
>
>  John K Clark 
>
>

The mechanism of cosmological inflation making new matter is another 
question:

http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation

... In [Hawking's] view, in light of quantum mechanics, it doesn’t make 
sense to talk about the origin and evolution of the universe as if it 
followed a single unique trajectory. Instead, he argues, we ought to use 
the universe as we observe it *right now*—coupled with the assumption that 
it arose from nothing—and take a quantum superposition of every possible 
history that could have led from nothing to now. It’s not that we don’t 
know which history really occurred—it’s that they *all* occurred. Rather 
than a multiverse with a single history, you have a single universe with 
multiple histories. When Hawking takes the sum of these histories to 
determine the most probable path, it is—voila!—a history in which the early 
universe went through inflation. Inflation pops out on its own, from a 
theory that doesn’t involve a multiverse.

Many roads, it seems, lead back to inflation and inflation in turn leads to 
unexpected places. Steinhardt, Ijjas and Loeb are standing by their 
criticisms of the theory, and have made a website 
 to reiterate them. But the 33 
leading physicists who signed the letter—and countless others—are more 
confident in inflation than ever, exploring its strange territory, 
optimistic that it will eventually lead them to its own replacement: a more 
complete theory of the universe’s origin. That, certainly, *is* science. 
And it is pretty spectacular.

My question was about the mechanism of quantum many worlds generating new 
matter: every time a single particle is involved in a double-slit 
experiment the entire universe multiplies (branches)

*Single Photon Interference*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U

What happens when single photons of light pass through a double slit and 
are detected by a photomultiplier tube? In 1801 Thomas Young seemed to 
settle a long-running debate about the nature of light with his double slit 
experiment. He demonstrated that light passing through two slits creates 
patterns like water waves, with the implication that it must be a wave 
phenomenon. However, experimental results in the early 1900s found that 
light energy is not smoothly distributed as in a classical wave, rather it 
comes in discrete packets, called quanta and later photons. These are 
indivisible particles of light. So what would happen if individual photons 
passed through a double slit? Would they make a pattern like waves or like 
particles?

@phi

Re: Quantum Computing News


GPUs are used to execute computational physics programs, for example (and 
deep-net learning programs, of course).

@philipthrift



@philipthrift

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:33:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> No need to wait for the future, almost all computers now have a GPU to 
> handle the screen graphics which is as powerful as the CPU and optimized to 
> be faster for some operations.
>
> Brent
>
> On 10/2/2019 9:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> It is hard to judge. I tend to suspect future computers may have an array 
> of processors. A computer might have several types of processors, One might 
> be a qubit processor, another a neural network on a hardware level, another 
> a spin-tronic processor and at the core will probably be a classical 
> von-Neumann processor. 
>
> LC
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db3b8f5-e5d6-4714-9804-308a064739f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption


> On 2 Oct 2019, at 23:12, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:22 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > My problem with a tiny part of the academy comes from materialist (even 
> > marxiste) philosopher, and they have only criticise me for not citing Kant 
> > (which was false, so they have not really read the work) or mentioning 
> > Hegel, or Marx. And they hate the idea that “matter” would be non primary.
> 
> I find it impossible to believe any member of the National Academy of 
> Sciences would criticize anyone for not citing Kant or Karl Marx in a physics 
> paper!  And if it's only a tiny part why can't you find even one of the 2,382 
> members of the Academy to publicly stand with you?

Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of Sciences; 
They are not scientist. They are academical philosopher. Some believe that they 
just defend their steak. Since the separation of science and theology, 
philosophy (which means science at the time of early christianism, still so 
much later in Islam) has been separated fro science too. Institutionalised 
religion and philosophy are just trick to prevent people to doubt, think, and 
criticise.

Now, I am just a modest scientist. You don’t think people standing with you. 
You publish, and hope to be refuted, so as to learn something.

Bruno



> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04U8HJ7DNmAVaZtnTDayT%2BO8RddRagHD%3D%2BrEH7CDXk%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/28BA2D5A-54A3-4854-9D5A-DB41B6F118BE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 1 Oct 2019, at 14:13, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> 
> >> I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until 
> >> November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell 
> >> non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is 
> >> a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the 
> >> like. This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting 
> >> is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that 
> >> the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. 
> >> Bruno and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being 
> >> associated with the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of 
> >> physical interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a 
> >> result is not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a 
> >> lot of loose thinking about this "splitting" process.
> >> 
> >> The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with 
> >> aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by 
> >> destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light 
> >> carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not 
> >> coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing 
> >> interference, then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
> > 
> > But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum 
> > Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the 
> > environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information 
> > spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the 
> > future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the 
> > inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information 
> > isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; 
> > it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no 
> > small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent, 
> > but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero 
> > out cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the 
> > mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.
> 
> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
> start.
> 
> How? The wave function itself is non-local.

It looks like that from the one term perspective, but the universal wave is 
local. It is “just” a rotation in some space. All wave are typically local.



>  
> The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and we 
> see non locality only from a branch/term perspective.
> 
> But every branch in the Everettian picture shows non-locality.

Yes, but only due to the statistical interference between all terms of the 
wave. The non-locality just shows that we have to take into account the 
information even when it is no more accessible in direct or interactive way.



> Where do the other branches make each branch actually local? You are still 
> not explaining anything.


I am not trying to explain everything. I am just saying that the violation of 
Bell’s inequality does not prove any physical FTM influences.



>  
> But without collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL 
> communication, nor any FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique world 
> would be as much embarrassing).
> 
> Neither collapse nor FTL are the issue. We can agree that there is no FTL 
> action because that would amount to a local explanation -- the FTL exchange 
> would interact locally at each end. The effect is non-local because the 
> non-separable wave function is  intrinsically non-local. Lorentz invariance 
> is intact because of the no signalling theorems.

You lost me with “the wave function is intrinsically non local”.



> 
> That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a quasi-confimartion of the 
> “other histories” being as real as our’s.
> 
> As I said, the thought that Bell might be local in many worlds was really the 
> last hope for MWI being of any use. But all attempts to demonstrate this have 
> failed. The sort of mumbo jumbo you offer here is no better than Wallace's 
> obscurantism.

It is up to those who believe in FTL to show them. If by non-locality you mean 
“appearance of action at a distance, but without any FTL”, the I think we 
agree. I can show that arithmetic entails intuitively and formally that type of 
inseparability of the observable. It comes from the fact that the first person 
cannot be aware of the UD-steps delays.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce 
> 
> -- 
>

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:24, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>  So, the best way to interpret the 
> multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes 
> exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one 
> parameter family of parallel worlds with the same information content. 
> In QM the information present in a world cannot in general be retrieved 
> from another world, in general one needs to consider superpositions of 
> different worlds. 
> 
> Saibal 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the basic problem:
> 
>   MW people believe in an informational (immaterial) reality, not a 
> material reality.
> 
> So when they look at an apple, whether whole or split in two, it's just 
> information.
> 
> Information can be multiplied without any cost: one can take a 0110 and make 
> !001 (~0110) in addition, because 0s and 1s are immaterial, and there is no 
> cost in making new information.
> 
> But that is not the case with matter.

So, maybe the time has come to abandon the “matter” idea, as experience 
confirms its non-sense (known since Plato, but forgotten since 
philosophy/theology has abandoned its original seriousness.

There are just no evidences, and it makes everything very complicated,  in 
psychology, theology, physics, … But since some times many confuse the obvious 
evidences for a physical reality, with evidence for a metaphysical idea “the 
primaryness of that physical reality”.

Today people argue against the origin of the physical reality, like religious 
people argue against the origin of humanity (and evolution).

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ddd8651-8af2-4645-8ebe-24ad75b4b06f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FFEE931B-9DAA-469E-B0C7-6A8EEB41E126%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until 
 November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell 
 non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is 
 a local physical interaction -- photons interacting with walls and the 
 like. This clearly spreads at the speed of light (or less). But splitting 
 is not really just decoherence. The trouble with Bell non-locality is that 
 the splitting of worlds is not a physical interaction like decoherence. 
 Bruno and others speak about a "spread of entanglement" as being 
 associated with the splitting. But again, entanglement is the result of 
 physical interaction, and the interaction of looking at a pointer to see a 
 result is not really an entanglement interaction. I think that there is a 
 lot of loose thinking about this "splitting" process.
 
 The absence of disallowed branches (Alice and Bob both seeing spin-up with 
 aligned polarisers) is not a matter of worlds (branches) cancelling by 
 destructive interference, because there is no interaction -- the light 
 carrying information from the space like separated measurements is not 
 coherent, so it can't interfere. If it were coherent, allowing 
 interference, then that coherence itself would indicate non-locality.
>>> But the copying of information as to the measurement result, quantum 
>>> Darwinism, is a physical interaction that writes the information into the 
>>> environment.  So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN information 
>>> spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob.  Where they overlap in the 
>>> future they must correlate per QM.  Why can't we suppose that the 
>>> inconsistent worlds cancel out.  You say the light carrying the information 
>>> isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; 
>>> it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment.  So no 
>>> small part of the environment (like the light) is going to appear coherent, 
>>> but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero 
>>> out cross terms in the density matrix.  That's essentially what the 
>>> mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does.
>> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at the 
>> start.
> 
> No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
> inequality couldn't be violated.


Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is 
in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if you 
agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
with mechanism are the real thing). 
Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some FTL 
action.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> The Wave act locally in the Hilbert space (or the von Neumann algebra, and 
>> we see non locality only from a branch/term perspective. But without 
>> collapse, the non locality does not involved neither FTL communication, nor 
>> any FTL influence (which, for a realist on a unique world would be as much 
>> embarrassing). That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a 
>> quasi-confimartion of the “other histories” being as real as our’s.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/82e40b4e-7a51-c2c7-2b37-2fbb5923e9b4%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/acff7b2f-7674-708b-47ca-6c7ba1db393c%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/702104E8-E97A-45A8-A4FD-F8C07D58286B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 2 Oct 2019, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM John Clark  > wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> >many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell non-locality 
> >-- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the Bell 
> >inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists
> 
> MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must not 
> only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they are 
> not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is not realistic. 
> And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated, 
> therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least one of the 
> following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3:
> 
> 1) Realism
> 2) Superdeterminism 
> 3) Locality
> 
> Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe 
> Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be.
> 
> Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says.
> Locality is certainly ruled out. Bell's result is a theorem, not a 
> conjecture. And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations.
> I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. But Einsteinian realism is certainly 
> false -- it is ruled out experimentally.

MWI saves Einstein’s realism, And the “3p” (truly 1p-plural) locality, making 
the violation of Bell’s inequality avoiding any FTL action.

Bruno


> 
> Bruce 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSya17yDyxSJb_5e1gWb-XFWZ6UDkWLyv4dzWUWicWHig%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00C7EDD7-7792-4E42-91BC-244F230D790A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: How Many Universes Are There?


> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> How Many Universes Are There? 
> 


0.

Bruno




> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2d2PjP2Gna-4Ocksxjq4G2oRAjRrDEL6gmjn-Lc1xtpA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66CB4626-5B0D-48F4-BF49-7AF5A5F8CBE8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Inflation

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
>> inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but in 
>> this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I am 
>> open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you agree 
>> that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
>> Bruce's 
>> take on this particular issue? AG
>>
>
> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. But 
> that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems in need 
> of 
> explanation.
>
> Bruce 
>

 The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe become 
 uniform when there would have been no causal connection between them. In 
 particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism whereby 
 deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.

>>>
>>> Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a matter of 
>>> distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing about either, 
>>> so why solve a problem before you know it exists? Besides, can you achieve 
>>> thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 10^{-35} sec?
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 10^{-32} 
>> sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in energy this 
>> inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the periodicities of fields. 
>> That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.
>>
>
> The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
> uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation just 
> replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.
>
> I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
> problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
> might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for these 
> fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
> nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
> the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
> gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
> parameters that are set by hand.
>
>
The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though by 
inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
Estimates of this works out pretty well.

LC
 

>
> Winding  the timeline of the universe back in time based on no inflation 
>> results in a problem because of high z physics, in particular the CMB. 
>> Without this high vacuum energy and extreme acceleration there is no way to 
>> get everything in the same region so they causally evolved according to the 
>> same set of initial conditions. In fact before inflation this was a problem 
>> that buggered cosmologies back in the 1960s and 70s.
>>
>  
> Perhaps it took a while to realise the importance of initial 
> conditions..
>
> Bruce 
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d22ed46c-cea6-4b3d-8a6b-878b692bfe89%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:46:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that inflation is 
>> mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but in this case, 
>> based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I am open to being 
>> proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you agree that inflation 
>> does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about Bruce's take on this 
>> particular issue? AG
>>
>
> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. But that 
> is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems in need of 
> explanation.
>
> Bruce 
>

In the case of flatness, if the expansion rate were constant, as defined by 
the Hubble constant of about 70 km/sec/mps, and assuming a hyperspherical 
geometry expanding for 13.8 by, the measured flatness is probably 
implausibly too close to zero; IOW too flat. Inflation might be the 
explanation.  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c4dbfd4a-e7f4-4036-ac04-672ec5078b30%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:41:02 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:26:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:52:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 8:53:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce considers that inflation remains somewhat speculative; that 
>> it's a solution looking for a problem to solve. So my questions are as 
>> follows: 1), does inflation solve the homogeneity problem; namely, that 
>> the 
>> observable universe seems to have come to thermo equlibrium, manifested 
>> by 
>> homogeneity, even though it is causally UN-connected; and 2), does it 
>> explain the absence of magnetic monopoles? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Bruce; it seems like a simple issue you can resolve. That is, if 
> you're skeptical that inflation solves any problems, does that include 
> its 
> allege explanation for large scale homogeneity and the absence of 
> magnetic 
> monopoles? TIA, AG
>

 Alan, stop treating me as though I existed merely to answer your 
 questions. The answers to these questions are readily available in the 
 literature. It is clear from your postings here that you are not widely 
 read in the modern literature on these subjects. I am not your teacher. I 
 think Sabine Hossenfelder has a blog post on this:

 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/search?q=+inflation

 Bruce 

>>>
>>> Alan also asks same questions over and over, where Alan then shaves 
>>> these down to absurd points in refinements. These things are in internet 
>>> resources that are fairly accessible to laymen. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Absurd points of refinements? Haven't you heard; the demons are in the 
>> details? Instead of sycophantic BS'ing, don't you think inflation is a 
>> good, and so far only explanation for the homogeneity of our causally 
>> UNconnected observable universe. I read the comments by Hossenfelder on 
>> homogeneity and didn't find them persuasive.  AG
>>
>
> You belabor questions in a way that illustrates your need for something 
> similar to a proof. 
>

*Difficult issues, unsolved or partially solved, tend to come up repeatedly 
for further refinements. Nothing remarkable about this. Not to be 
characterized as belaboring. AG*
 

> Science does not prove its conclusions. 
>

*What it does is GUESS at physical laws. This is what Feynman stated in The 
Character of Physical Law, and I totally agree. A good guess predicts what 
we observe. I don't see why you think I require mathematical proofs. 
Occasionally we get something like a mathematical proof, e.g., when 
Einstein derived the LT based on the assumption of the invariance of the 
SoL. But this is an exception. AG *

Oh sure, there are logical derivations or proofs in formulation of 
> theories, but what is tentatively true relies on consistency with 
> observations. Inflation is to homogeneity what stretching dough is to 
> making a stroudel or pizza crust. Stretch it out and it is pretty uniform. 
> The mathematics in the theory makies this work in a way one can make 
> calculations.
>
> You have asked this same question repeatedly, as with some other 
> questions, the answers are generally the same and you make the same 
> complaints.
>
> LC
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd30e146-21d5-4051-8835-6b5f9ac01ce9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Universes Are There?



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
> How Many Universes Are There? 
> 
>
>
>
> 0.
>
> Bruno
>

*You've turned Tegmark upside down, on his head. But the same core fallacy 
remains. AG *

>
>
>
>
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2d2PjP2Gna-4Ocksxjq4G2oRAjRrDEL6gmjn-Lc1xtpA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9166511-2575-40ab-bc65-7f0b4d82db1a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>>
> *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. *
> >> If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the 
> >> polarization
> of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always
> exist in one and only one definite state.

> *I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'.*

Which word didn't you understand?

> *> I suggest you read Maudlin's paper:*
>

I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that
time's arrow and all the laws of physics are primitive, that is to say
they can not be reduced to something else, certainly not to arithmetic.

*> "Einteinian realism" and shows that this criterion is analytic --
> depending only on the meanings of the words involved.*

Well duh how could it be otherwise?!  I've clearly explained what the
word "realism" means to Carroll and to modern physicists, and although
there may be controversy among them about if realism is true or not there
is no controversy over the meaning of the word. Modern physicists don't
invent idiosyncratic meanings for common words.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2yKgFE0DVNVVJT%3Dfwoer5dk-WZfTgpYUA9XcWkYAovyw%40mail.gmail.com.

Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...

David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019

Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new
branched off world requires no new energy?

None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but
significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.

Sabine Hossenfelder 12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
David,

The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is
that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer
your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here
nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are
not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total
energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of
that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There
is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing
interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

@philipthrift

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e1fb9ef5-9b12-45f5-a122-612242ad17a5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new
> branched off world requires no new energy?*


Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be
conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe
when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state
it wouldn't be?

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JL1JLnUA0uU272vSnwU96XcnmAy7EvgVG1Xh%3DyU7fTw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:36:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>
>
> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be 
> conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe 
> when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state 
> it wouldn't be?
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>



The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, not 
Cosmology or General Relativity.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09ead49d-2bb1-45a6-9786-768a73049bb5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:08 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> > On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at
> the start.
> >
> > No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise
> Bell's inequality couldn't be violated.
>
> Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non
> locality is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is
> obvious if you agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in
> some space. Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in
> Everett and with mechanism are the real thing).
> Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some
> FTL action.
>

I think you have missed the point, Bruno. The wave function itself is
non-local. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been talking
about:

|psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).

The kets in the tensor product refer to different particles, with arbitrary
separation in space-time. But this is a single state. Because it is
non-separable, and refers to different spacetime locations, it is
intrinsically non-local. You can rotate it as much as you like in Hilbert
space, but you will never remove the non-locality. That is the way it is --
it will always refer inevitably to two separate spacetime locations.

As Wallace reports Deutsch to have said: "quantum theory is a theory of
local interactions with non-local states." So with EPR correlations, the
state is intrinsically non-local but all the measurement interactions are
local. The trouble is that, because of Bell's theorem, there is no local
causal explanation of the correlations -- they are evidence of the
non-locality of the state. And there is no FTL action -- that would be a
local hidden variable causal explanation, and Bell rules that out.

Bruce

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSewE7FaznrJTY6OeQO240hqKX4DSm6rW1743PGfUQc%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: How Many Universes Are There?

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:12, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark > wrote:
>> 
>> How Many Universes Are There? 
>> 
> 
> 
> 0.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> You've turned Tegmark upside down,

That looks intersting, but I don’t know. Maybe you can elaborate. I published 
my material well before Tegmark, and start from a very different problem (the 
mind-body problem). 
When Tegmark send me his Mathematical Hypothesis paper, I suggest him to use 
the Mechanist hypothesis explicitly to clarify possible ambiguities. What is 
common is the Mathematicalism, but Tegmark still miss the psychologicalism, or 
the theologicalism needed to get physics from arithmetic (and arithmetical 
self-reference).

> on his head. But the same core fallacy remains. AG 

Which one?

I say 0 universe since my birth, not because it would be incompatible with 
Mechanism (which it is), but because I have never seen any evidence for an 
ontologically real universe. I have no doubt that long and deep histories 
exists, but this requires only assumption in arithmetic.

Keep in mind that I give a theory (indeed a very simple one: Kxy = x, and Sxyz 
= xz(yz). All the rest are definitions and theorem (made in that theory).

Well just to be sure, you need some inference rule, so the entire theory is:

RULES

1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy

AXIOMS

4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)

(See the combinators thread for an explicit proof that this is Turing 
universal). 

To be sure, I can use much more complicated theory, like the complete first 
order predicate calculus + the axioms:

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

… which as the same time is the one taught informally in high school.

Bruno

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2d2PjP2Gna-4Ocksxjq4G2oRAjRrDEL6gmjn-Lc1xtpA%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9166511-2575-40ab-bc65-7f0b4d82db1a%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F640A7C2-CEF4-4436-ABD6-9CFAB2FE074B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

* >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new
> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>


>> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would
> be conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe
> when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state
> it wouldn't be?
>
> > The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
> not Cosmology or General Relativity.
>

Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would think Cosmology and
General Relativity and Noether's Theorem would have nothing to do with Many
Worlds?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0Rw2SNi5WPHQBfgRqU_gb_EQ1FyW6M8cM6dj6zCeopsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
 goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
>>> inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but 
>>> in 
>>> this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I am 
>>> open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you 
>>> agree 
>>> that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
>>> Bruce's 
>>> take on this particular issue? AG
>>>
>>
>> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. But 
>> that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems in need 
>> of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> Bruce 
>>
>
> The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe become 
> uniform when there would have been no causal connection between them. In 
> particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism whereby 
> deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.
>

 Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a matter 
 of distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing about 
 either, so why solve a problem before you know it exists? Besides, can you 
 achieve thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 10^{-35} sec?

 Bruce 

>>>
>>> Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 10^{-32} 
>>> sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in energy this 
>>> inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the periodicities of fields. 
>>> That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
>> uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation just 
>> replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.
>>
>> I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
>> problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
>> might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for these 
>> fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
>> nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
>> the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
>> gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
>> parameters that are set by hand.
>>
>>
> The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though by 
> inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
> configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
> ∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
> configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
> were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
> Estimates of this works out pretty well.
>
> LC
>

I have a different model. Inflation didn't attentuate the initial 
condition. Rather it *preserved* an initial condition of virtually perfect 
uniformity, which was about the one part in 100,000 observed in the CMBR. 
Before inflation began, the universe was tiny, say much less than the 
diameter of a proton. It was so small in comparison to the SoL, that it was 
in thermo equilbrium *before* inflation began. The sudden huge expansion 
preserved the already existing thermo equilibrium. If inflation didn't 
happen, the time of recombination would have occurred much later than 
380,000 years after the BB, and by that time the original very tiny 
fluctuations would have increased, resulting in relatively large variations 
in the CMBR, much more than one part in 100,000. What I haven't calculated 
-- because I don't know how -- is whether the time duration before 
inflation was long enough, despite the large SoL, for the universe to reach 
an approximate thermo equilbrium of one part in 100,000. AG

>  
>
>>
>> Winding  the timeline of the universe back in time based on no inflation 
>>> results in a problem because of high z physics, in particular the CMB. 
>>> Without this high vacuum energy and extreme acceleration there is no way to 
>>> get everything in the same region so they causally evolved according to the 
>>> same set of initial conditions. In fact before inflation this was a problem 
>>> that buggered cosmologies back in the 1960s and 70s.
>>>
>>  
>> Perhaps

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>>
>  
>
> >> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy 
>> would be conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating 
>> universe when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity 
>> clearly state it wouldn't be?
>>
>> > The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum 
>> Mechanics, not Cosmology or General Relativity.
>>
>
> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would think Cosmology and 
> General Relativity and Noether's Theorem would have nothing to do with 
> Many Worlds?
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>  
>
>
The answer to that should be fascinating.

Connect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation 

to answer the Many Worlds energy question above.

@philipthrift


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e5ac9a6-21fb-481c-a442-ec84c235dac1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>
> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>
> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
> branched off world requires no new energy?
>
> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
> David,
>
> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
> interesting.
>
>
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>
> @philipthrift
>

Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't 
even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/619ee3ca-0a42-417d-8e1a-abca17db031b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's 
inequality couldn't be violated.

Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is 
in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that is obvious if you 
agree that the wave function evolution is only a rotation in some space. 
Rotation are typically local, even in abstract spaces (which in Everett and 
with mechanism are the real thing).
Now, with “one physical universe”, that non-local perspective implies some FTL 
action.


Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated in 
tests of Bell's inequality.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af476db4-c91e-bebd-8498-42a26596f100%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>>
>> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>>
>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?
>>
>> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
>> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
>> David,
>>
>> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
>> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
>> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
>> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
>> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't 
> even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG  
>

Exactly. 

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
1s, the  energy of the computer 

   C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
energy of C.

@philipthrift


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5e99460-aebe-4cb8-8da9-090a42bdfc41%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 


It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1b7c87b-96d7-a2bd-4ecd-f1ef6ccfba8a%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>
> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>
> Brent 
>



But MWI eliminates probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
1s, the  energy of the computer 

   C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
energy of C.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe3d7d7d-0b9c-4acf-b811-0b3b1d1d46e6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>
> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>
> Brent 
>

Presumably, in that model, its energy would be zero, in effect a 
non-existent universe. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44d71301-2a77-4335-a5dd-28ad77f999f5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
> occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it
> can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally
ridiculous! AG

It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

Brent

But MWI eliminates probabilities.

That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means
everything happens.

Brent

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C
with a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of
1000 0s and 1s, the energy of the computer

C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be
1/(2^1000)th of energy of C.

@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe3d7d7d-0b9c-4acf-b811-0b3b1d1d46e6%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/08cda6e4-94df-a545-49c1-75d77ef9d710%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread smitra

On 03-10-2019 19:44, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it

can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous!

It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

Brent

But MWI eliminates probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C
with a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of
1000 0s and 1s, the energy of the computer

C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be
1/(2^1000)th of energy of C.

This is a problem only if you reject the block time view and instead
support presentalism. And presentalism is rather unnatural in the MWI to
begin with because how doe you synchronize all the present moments in
the different worlds? That energy is conserved in classical physics does
not necessarily mean that the past world was somehow annihilated and all
its energy ended up in the new world. But if you believe in
presentalism, then you can interpret time evolution in this way. This
then leads to the paradox of energy conservation in the MWI. But in the
block time view energy conservation is not the result of old worlds
vanishing and new worlds coming into existence. All the worlds, old and
new exist in a timeless manner, and they have certain energy contents.
The MWI then says that one world can have many successor worlds and
obviously it's then rather natural that each successor has the same
energy as the original.

Saibal

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.


There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.

Run the code

*Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s play 
the coin flip game!*

https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a

with a loop of 100.

if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.

In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.

@philipthrift




On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>>
>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
>
>
> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>
>
> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of 
> probabilities.  
>
>
> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>
> They all exist in MWI.
>
>  
> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means everything 
> happens.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
> quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
> 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>
>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>
> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th 
> of energy of C.
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46ef9060-c1d7-4760-9ed5-48cb37dc83dc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Jason Resch

Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models.  The
expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy
is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is
creating energy.

Jason

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.
>
> Run the code
>
> *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s
> play the coin flip game!*
>
>
> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a
>
> with a loop of 100.
>
> if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.
>
> In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
>>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it
>>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG
>>>
>>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>>
>>
>> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of
>> probabilities.
>>
>>
>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>>
>> They all exist in MWI.
>>
>>
>> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means
>> everything happens.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with
>> a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s
>> and 1s, the  energy of the computer
>>
>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>>
>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th
>> of energy of C.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46ef9060-c1d7-4760-9ed5-48cb37dc83dc%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjnzHb%3DW%2BKA%3DL%3DeLPR-bgjWXb5FCw1iY76xsvdf4_8HNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>

 In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
 inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but 
 in 
 this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I 
 am 
 open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you 
 agree 
 that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
 Bruce's 
 take on this particular issue? AG

>>>
>>> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. But 
>>> that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems in need 
>>> of 
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe become 
>> uniform when there would have been no causal connection between them. In 
>> particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism whereby 
>> deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.
>>
>
> Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a matter 
> of distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing about 
> either, so why solve a problem before you know it exists? Besides, can 
> you 
> achieve thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 10^{-35} sec?
>
> Bruce 
>

 Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 
 10^{-32} sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in 
 energy this inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the periodicities 
 of fields. That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.

>>>
>>> The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
>>> uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation just 
>>> replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.
>>>
>>> I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
>>> problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
>>> might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for these 
>>> fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
>>> nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
>>> the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
>>> gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
>>> parameters that are set by hand.
>>>
>>>
>> The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though by 
>> inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
>> configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
>> ∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
>> configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
>> were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
>> Estimates of this works out pretty well.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I have a different model. Inflation didn't attentuate the initial 
> condition. Rather it *preserved* an initial condition of virtually 
> perfect uniformity, which was about the one part in 100,000 observed in the 
> CMBR. Before inflation began, the universe was tiny, say much less than the 
> diameter of a proton. It was so small in comparison to the SoL, that it was 
> in thermo equilbrium *before* inflation began. The sudden huge expansion 
> preserved the already existing thermo equilibrium. If inflation didn't 
> happen, the time of recombination would have occurred much later than 
> 380,000 years after the BB, and by that time the original very tiny 
> fluctuations would have increased, resulting in relatively large variations 
> in the CMBR, much more than one part in 100,000. What I haven't calculated 
> -- because I don't know how -- is whether the time duration before 
> inflation was long enough, despite the large SoL, for the universe to reach 
> an approximate thermo equilbrium of one part in 100,000. AG
>

For various reasons this will not work. With inflation the cosmological 
horizon was 10^{-27}m in radius. The real problem is that without inflation 
winding back the cosmic time leads to nonsensical conditions.

LC
 

>  
>>
>>>
>>> Winding  the timeline of the universe back

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

This really is a well enough explained question. 

LC

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>
> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>
> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
> branched off world requires no new energy?
>
> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
> David,
>
> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
> interesting.
>
>
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/765fc985-b037-4267-b35c-171cd71aad91%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This really is a well enough explained question.
>
> LC
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>
The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably the
most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in
each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of
branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly
is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense.
Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have
no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply
conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions.
How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually
help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary
universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.

Bruce

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTojDcdP%3DHO2PCk8-b95QP%2B7SC55vXv%3DxuJdTQfcWf5SA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
 goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

>
> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
> inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but 
> in 
> this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I 
> am 
> open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you 
> agree 
> that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
> Bruce's 
> take on this particular issue? AG
>

 Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. 
 But that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems in 
 need 
 of explanation.

 Bruce 

>>>
>>> The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe become 
>>> uniform when there would have been no causal connection between them. 
>>> In 
>>> particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism whereby 
>>> deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.
>>>
>>
>> Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a matter 
>> of distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing about 
>> either, so why solve a problem before you know it exists? Besides, can 
>> you 
>> achieve thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 10^{-35} sec?
>>
>> Bruce 
>>
>
> Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 
> 10^{-32} sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in 
> energy this inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the 
> periodicities 
> of fields. That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.
>

 The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
 uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation just 
 replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.

 I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
 problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
 might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for 
 these 
 fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
 nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
 the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
 gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
 parameters that are set by hand.


>>> The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though 
>>> by inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
>>> configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
>>> ∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
>>> configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
>>> were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
>>> Estimates of this works out pretty well.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> I have a different model. Inflation didn't attentuate the initial 
>> condition. Rather it *preserved* an initial condition of virtually 
>> perfect uniformity, which was about the one part in 100,000 observed in the 
>> CMBR. Before inflation began, the universe was tiny, say much less than the 
>> diameter of a proton. It was so small in comparison to the SoL, that it was 
>> in thermo equilbrium *before* inflation began. The sudden huge expansion 
>> preserved the already existing thermo equilibrium. If inflation didn't 
>> happen, the time of recombination would have occurred much later than 
>> 380,000 years after the BB, and by that time the original very tiny 
>> fluctuations would have increased, resulting in relatively large variations 
>> in the CMBR, much more than one part in 100,000. What I haven't calculated 
>> -- because I don't know how -- is whether the time duration before 
>> inflation was long enough, despite the large SoL, for the universe to reach 
>> an approximate thermo equilbrium of one part in 100,000. AG
>>
>
> For various reasons this will not work. With inflation the cosmologica

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.


Right.

It's a perfectly good question that Sabine doesn't answer.

(Of course if there is one world, there is no problem. But no reasonable 
physicist believes in many worlds. They are deluded by math.)



@philipthrift


On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:55 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This really is a well enough explained question. 
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>>
>> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>>
>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?
>>
>> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
>> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
>> David,
>>
>> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
>> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
>> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
>> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
>> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6657a9b6-209e-4692-aa30-451f63bc53a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.


The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
> Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models.  The 
> expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy 
> is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is 
> creating energy.
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.
>>
>> Run the code
>>
>> *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s 
>> play the coin flip game!*
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a
>>
>> with a loop of 100.
>>
>> if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.
>>
>> In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
 > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
 > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 

 It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 

 Brent 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of 
>>> probabilities.  
>>>
>>>
>>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>>>
>>> They all exist in MWI.
>>>
>>>  
>>> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means 
>>> everything happens.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with 
>>> a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s 
>>> and 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>>>
>>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>>>
>>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th 
>>> of energy of C.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0b5dc5a9-5f16-4258-8ad6-9558833bfe8f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> This really is a well enough explained question. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>>
>>
> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably the 
> most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in 
> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of 
> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly 
> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense. 
> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have 
> no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
>
> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply 
> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions. 
> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually 
> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary 
> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.
>
> Bruce 
>




Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently 
published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math" 

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75fb5af0-24d5-4ed8-aade-209ce797f86a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:52:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
>> inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, 
>> but in 
>> this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I 
>> am 
>> open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you 
>> agree 
>> that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
>> Bruce's 
>> take on this particular issue? AG
>>
>
> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. 
> But that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems 
> in need 
> of explanation.
>
> Bruce 
>

 The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe 
 become uniform when there would have been no causal connection between 
 them. In particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism 
 whereby 
 deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.

>>>
>>> Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a 
>>> matter of distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing 
>>> about either, so why solve a problem before you know it exists? 
>>> Besides, 
>>> can you achieve thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 
>>> 10^{-35} 
>>> sec?
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 
>> 10^{-32} sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in 
>> energy this inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the 
>> periodicities 
>> of fields. That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.
>>
>
> The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
> uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation 
> just 
> replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.
>
> I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
> problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
> might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for 
> these 
> fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
> nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
> the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
> gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
> parameters that are set by hand.
>
>
 The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though 
 by inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
 configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
 ∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
 configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
 were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
 Estimates of this works out pretty well.

 LC

>>>
>>> I have a different model. Inflation didn't attentuate the initial 
>>> condition. Rather it *preserved* an initial condition of virtually 
>>> perfect uniformity, which was about the one part in 100,000 observed in the 
>>> CMBR. Before inflation began, the universe was tiny, say much less than the 
>>> diameter of a proton. It was so small in comparison to the SoL, that it was 
>>> in thermo equilbrium *before* inflation began. The sudden huge 
>>> expansion preserved the already existing thermo equilibrium. If inflation 
>>> didn't happen, the time of recombination would have occurred much later 
>>> than 380,000 years after the BB, and by that time the original very tiny 
>>> fluctuations would have increased, resulting in relatively large variations 
>>> in the CMBR, much more than one part in 100,000. What I haven't calculated 
>>> -- because I don't know how -- is whether the time duration before 
>>> inflation

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This really is a well enough explained question.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the
 total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the
 probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum
 mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and
 nothing interesting.



 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

>>>
>> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably
>> the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in
>> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of
>> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly
>> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense.
>> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have
>> no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
>>
>> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply
>> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions.
>> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually
>> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary
>> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently
> published Italian version:
>
> "Deluded by Math"
>
> Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.
>
> Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing.
>

Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the
conventional arguments rather than thinking things through.  But, at least
she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The contrary voice is
often needed.

Bruce

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSDUzk%3DFLduHUeR5WAc9K8Vx6tXnG8Zg9vdV4VhVhFJZg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just
> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's
> illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo
> equiiibrium just before inflation begun. AG
>

That is essentially what I said. Lawrence is just replacing one set of
unknown initial conditions with another, equally unjustified, set.

Bruce

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS5sS6KrdNC_NCN4cq9JUJ8VzANGdfFE2iY5aRAejL4rg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just 
>> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's 
>> illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo 
>> equiiibrium just before inflation begun. AG 
>>
>
> That is essentially what I said. Lawrence is just replacing one set of 
> unknown initial conditions with another, equally unjustified, set.
>
> Bruce
>

I think you're agreeing that the model I posit, makes sense; namely, that 
inflation preserves the original thermo equilibrium, and this is important 
since without inflation the tiny fluctuations would have increased, the 
CMBR would have occurred much later, and departures from one part in 
100,000 would be manifested. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a626571a-f9b4-49e1-a5e2-7d690699dcd2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:52:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that 
>> inflation is mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, 
>> but in 
>> this case, based on my study of this particular issue, I disagree. I 
>> am 
>> open to being proved wrong, but insults don't cut it. At least you 
>> agree 
>> that inflation does explain homogeneity. Aren't you curious about 
>> Bruce's 
>> take on this particular issue? AG
>>
>
> Inflation can result in an increase in flatness and homogeneity. 
> But that is relevant only if flatness and homogeneity were problems 
> in need 
> of explanation.
>
> Bruce 
>

 The real problem is how did disparate regions of the universe 
 become uniform when there would have been no causal connection between 
 them. In particular with homogeneity inflation provides a mechanism 
 whereby 
 deviations from homogeneity and isotropy are uniform.

>>>
>>> Fine. Provided they were not uniform at the start. It is all a 
>>> matter of distributions and in initial conditions. And you know nothing 
>>> about either, so why solve a problem before you know it exists? 
>>> Besides, 
>>> can you achieve thermal equilibrium in a non-equilibrium state in 
>>> 10^{-35} 
>>> sec?
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> Inflation started on a fiducial at 10^{-36}sec and lasted until 
>> 10^{-32} sec. Since the particle fields were near the Planck scale in 
>> energy this inflationary cycle lasted some 10^{10} times the 
>> periodicities 
>> of fields. That is enough to approximately have thermal equilibrium.
>>
>
> The problem is not the periodicity of the fields. The problem is the 
> uniformity of the initial conditions. As Sabine points out, inflation 
> just 
> replaces one set of unknown initial conditions with another.
>
> I would also take issue with her suggestion that inflation solves some 
> problems with the origin of the fluctuations seen in the CMB. Inflation 
> might provide a framework, but it does not provide an explanation for 
> these 
> fluctuations. The fluctuations are built in by hand, and the gaussian 
> nature of the fluctuations is also built in by hand. So these features of 
> the CMB are not "explained" by inflation in any sense at all. There 
> gaussian nature, and the relative magnitude of 10^{-5} are both free 
> parameters that are set by hand.
>
>
 The initial conditions, what ever they were, were flattened out though 
 by inflation. The anisotropy in the CMB is due to details in the field 
 configuration of the scalar field. The theory just provides the action S = 
 ∫d^4x√g(φR + L(φ)), but not the explicit initial conditions or the 
 configuration of the field at reheating. The point though is these details 
 were exponentially attenuated by inflation so their magnitude is small. 
 Estimates of this works out pretty well.

 LC

>>>
>>> I have a different model. Inflation didn't attentuate the initial 
>>> condition. Rather it *preserved* an initial condition of virtually 
>>> perfect uniformity, which was about the one part in 100,000 observed in the 
>>> CMBR. Before inflation began, the universe was tiny, say much less than the 
>>> diameter of a proton. It was so small in comparison to the SoL, that it was 
>>> in thermo equilbrium *before* inflation began. The sudden huge 
>>> expansion preserved the already existing thermo equilibrium. If inflation 
>>> didn't happen, the time of recombination would have occurred much later 
>>> than 380,000 years after the BB, and by that time the original very tiny 
>>> fluctuations would have increased, resulting in relatively large variations 
>>> in the CMBR, much more than one part in 100,000. What I haven't calculated 
>>> -- because I don't know how -- is whether the time duration before 
>>> inflation

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just 
>> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's 
>> illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo 
>> equiiibrium just before inflation begun. AG 
>>
>
> That is essentially what I said. Lawrence is just replacing one set of 
> unknown initial conditions with another, equally unjustified, set.
>
> Bruce
>

The entropy is S = A/4ℓ_p^2 +  quantum corrections, where these corrections 
are ~ (&S/&h^a)k^a. Here h^a is tangent to the horizon and k^a is normal. 
This condition coincident on a null surface can appear on a quantum 
extremal surface with null tangent g^s so that (&S/&h^a)k^a ≥ (&S/&g^a)k^a 
by subadditivity. However, this surface occurs inside the cosmological 
horizon. This means there is no equilibriium. Equilibrium is only 
approximated by stretching the horizon out to enormous distance after the 
spatial surface has inflated. 

It is the case that inflation does not tell us the whole story prior to 
inflation. So one can say there are equally unknown initial conditions. 
However, the details of those are less important as the spatial manifold is 
stretched out. That means inflation does provide at least a working system. 

LC

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eaa29128-97c6-4ecc-a9cc-6bf47614d1b2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:01:49 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just 
>>> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's 
>>> illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo 
>>> equiiibrium just before inflation begun. AG 
>>>
>>
>> That is essentially what I said. Lawrence is just replacing one set of 
>> unknown initial conditions with another, equally unjustified, set.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
In below & means δ. I forgot to replace them.

LC
 

>
> The entropy is S = A/4ℓ_p^2 +  quantum corrections, where these 
> corrections are ~ (&S/&h^a)k^a. Here h^a is tangent to the horizon and k^a 
> is normal. This condition coincident on a null surface can appear on a 
> quantum extremal surface with null tangent g^s so that (&S/&h^a)k^a ≥ 
> (&S/&g^a)k^a by subadditivity. However, this surface occurs inside the 
> cosmological horizon. This means there is no equilibriium. Equilibrium is 
> only approximated by stretching the horizon out to enormous distance after 
> the spatial surface has inflated. 
>
> It is the case that inflation does not tell us the whole story prior to 
> inflation. So one can say there are equally unknown initial conditions. 
> However, the details of those are less important as the spatial manifold is 
> stretched out. That means inflation does provide at least a working system. 
>
> LC
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75232332-e0e1-41f9-8f18-fbec29c01396%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:01:49 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>

 ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just 
 before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's 
 illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo 
 equiiibrium just before inflation begun. AG 

>>>
>>> That is essentially what I said. Lawrence is just replacing one set of 
>>> unknown initial conditions with another, equally unjustified, set.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
> In below & means δ. I forgot to replace them.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>> The entropy is S = A/4ℓ_p^2 +  quantum corrections, where these 
>> corrections are ~ (&S/&h^a)k^a. Here h^a is tangent to the horizon and k^a 
>> is normal. This condition coincident on a null surface can appear on a 
>> quantum extremal surface with null tangent g^s so that (&S/&h^a)k^a ≥ 
>> (&S/&g^a)k^a by subadditivity. However, this surface occurs inside the 
>> cosmological horizon. This means there is no equilibriium. Equilibrium is 
>> only approximated by stretching the horizon out to enormous distance after 
>> the spatial surface has inflated. 
>>
>> It is the case that inflation does not tell us the whole story prior to 
>> inflation. So one can say there are equally unknown initial conditions. 
>> However, the details of those are less important as the spatial manifold is 
>> stretched out. That means inflation does provide at least a working system. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
Assuming the universe was incredibly tiny prior to inflation, and was 
therefore causally connected, isn't it reasonable to assume that it had 
reached thermo equilibrium *prior* to the onset of inflation? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9344826e-531b-40a7-880a-16fbb431cc76%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.