date:20191005



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 6:49:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't deny 
>>> Hilbert space and keep MWI. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :
>>
>> Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure 
>> theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference. Whilst 
>> the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions” formulation of 
>> quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are restricted to 
>> “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to 
>> answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without 
>> observers.
>>
>> In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT, which 
>> was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind, uses 
>> spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and does not 
>> feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The use of 
>> histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects similarly, 
>> keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems. What a history 
>> exactly is depends
>> on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full (spacetime) 
>> description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition, whilst Hilbert space 
>> quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and collapse for its dynamics, in 
>> QMT we use the quantum measure, which measures the sum of quantum 
>> interferences between pairs of histories in an event. 
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
>
> QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> *ENERGY LEVELS.*
>
> Brent
>



Differentiable-Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6551

Path Integral of Coulomb System
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/public_html/kleiner_reb5/psfiles/pthic13.pdf

Energy levels and expectation values via accelerated path integral Monte 
Carlo
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/128/1/012062/pdf

etc.

@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/11aabf16-0e9c-4790-88ab-600ee6ae006a%40googlegroups.com.

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

2019-10-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

You can't deny
Hilbert space and keep MWI.

Brent

QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf
:

Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability
measure theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum
interference. Whilst the usual “Hilbert space, operators and
wavefunctions” formulation of quantum mechanics will predict
probabilities, they are restricted to “operator at some
time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to answer
inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without
observers.

In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT,
which was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in
mind, uses spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its
theory, and does not feature any observer dependence or any
collapse mechanic. The use of histories also allows us to treat
quantum and classical objects similarly, keeping the theory
general and applicable to many systems. What a history exactly is
depends
on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full
(spacetime) description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition,
whilst Hilbert space quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and
collapse for its dynamics, in QMT we use the quantum measure,
which measures the sum of quantum interferences between pairs of
histories in an event.

@philipthrift

Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

Brent

QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf

@philipthrift

*ENERGY LEVELS.*

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/75ca4456-52b5-7e96-95d8-6f4657f91bb2%40verizon.net.

Re: Inflation

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> They came to equilibrium, and what thermal fluctuations that deviated 
>> away from equilibrium were "ironed out" by inflation. 
>>
>
> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden 
> expansion attenuate them? It makes more sense to me that the universe was 
> already very close to thermal equilibrium during inflation, and inflation 
> *preserved* this state. BTW, I am not "belaboring" anything here; rather, 
> I am trying to resolve, or possibly modify, a key element of the inflation 
> model. AG
>

This is why these post with you drive me nuts. It is for the same reason 
that if waves are stretched out they are made more IR. If clumps are 
stretched out, think hard speed bump vs a soft one that is spread out, or 
if curvatures are stretched these occur on a low energy or larger scale.

LC
 

>  
>
>> The current state of the universe is such that it emerged from a much 
>> lower state of entropy than what we would otherwise think. This state of 
>> low entropy was available to a causal region that inflated out, and what 
>> fluctuations existed were stretched out and reduced in relative magnitude.
>>
>> I fail to see why so many people have trouble with this. It is not a 
>> final answer, for that will require not only quantum gravitation, but a 
>> theory of quantum gravitation that is worked into a fair measure of 
>> maturity. However, inflation does push the barrier of ignorance back a fair 
>> degree.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>>  

>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
 That was what was set up with inflation. The whole process of the 
 early expanding universe is about there being episodes of approximate 
 thermal equilibrium of particles, such as during the quark-gluon 
 plasma 
 phase, electroweak period, the QED equilibrium of electrons and photon 
 or 
 the plasma phase that ended by producing the CMB. 

 To think about physics one has to do a sort of Buddhist middle way. 
 It is not good to either be too liberal or given to extreme 
 speculations, 
 but it is also not good to be overly conservative. 

 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/7be7dcca-e234-43c7-946e-52835f326c27%40googlegroups.com.

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



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>> You can't deny 
>> Hilbert space and keep MWI. 
>>
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>
>
> QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :
>
> Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure 
> theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference. Whilst 
> the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions” formulation of 
> quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are restricted to 
> “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is thus unable to 
> answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a description without 
> observers.
>
> In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT, which 
> was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind, uses 
> spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and does not 
> feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The use of 
> histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects similarly, 
> keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems. What a history 
> exactly is depends
> on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full (spacetime) 
> description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition, whilst Hilbert space 
> quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and collapse for its dynamics, in 
> QMT we use the quantum measure, which measures the sum of quantum 
> interferences between pairs of histories in an event. 
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
>
>
> Brent
>




QMT probabilities (quababilities) are calculated via path integrals.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9401003.pdf

@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/aaceea72-62b3-4076-96d2-f3a6f985f6d4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation

2019-10-05 Thread Alan Grayson



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:57:10 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:57:30 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:32:32 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:50:12 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:34:42 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:31:31 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:13:22 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 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 ~ (/^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 (/^a)k^a 
>> ≥ 
>> (/^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 

>>>
>>> Thermal equilibrium is not possible with quantum fields in curved 
>>> spacetiome, nor is is likely in quantum gravity. The reason is not too 
>>> hard 
>>> to see. Suppose you have a black hole in a thermal background with the 
>>> same 
>>> temperature as its horizon T ~ 1/8M. The black hole has an 
>>> equiprobability 
>>> of absorbing or emitting a photon with energy δM The temperature then 
>>> adjusts as T - δT ~ 1/8(M + δM) or T + δT ~ 1/8(M - δM) and is shifted 
>>> away 
>>> from thermal equality. This will then enhance the probability the black 
>>> hole either then grows by absorbing more photons or by emitting them. 
>>> There 
>>> is no thermal equilibrium. Quantum gravitation is likely the same, for 
>>> the 
>>> effective specific heat of event horizons is negative. What I wrote 
>>> above 
>>> is in effect a more general form of this.
>>>
>>> Now a gemish of particles or a gas can be in thermal equilibrium in 
>>> spacetime. 
>>>
>>
>> *Doesn't this characterize the universe before inflation began? If 
>> not, then what? AG*
>>
>
> No, the large plasma of particles was generated in the post 
> inflationary period with reheating or the collapse of the vacuum or 
> inflaton.
>
> LC
>

 If not a plasma of particles before inflation, then what was it -- a 
 soup of photons, or what? Also, although I really don't know much about 
 BH's, your analysis above depends on a boundary between the BH and what's 
 beyond it. In the pre-inflation universe there was no internal boundary 
 within the universe, so I don't see the relevance of the BH analogy. AG 

>>>
>>> I will write it one more time. Particles and radiation emerged in the 
>>> observable

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

2019-10-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

You can't deny
Hilbert space and keep MWI.

Brent

QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf :

Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes probability measure
theory and weakly extends it to accommodate quantum interference.
Whilst the usual “Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions”
formulation of quantum mechanics will predict probabilities, they are
restricted to “operator at some time”-based events, and the theory is
thus unable to answer inherently spacetime questions and lacks a
description without observers.

In contrast [to Hilbert space, operators and wavefunctions], QMT,
which was constructed with the spacetime model of causal sets in mind,
uses spacetime objects – histories – as the basis of its theory, and
does not feature any observer dependence or any collapse mechanic. The
use of histories also allows us to treat quantum and classical objects
similarly, keeping the theory general and applicable to many systems.
What a history exactly is depends
on the system being studied, but in general it will be a full
(spacetime) description of a system’s evolution. ... In addition,
whilst Hilbert space quantum mechanics uses the Hamiltonian and
collapse for its dynamics, in QMT we use the quantum measure, which
measures the sum of quantum interferences between pairs of histories
in an event.

@philipthrift

Which ends with a list of unsolved problems for QMT "These questions are
challenging and will likely further define and alter what evolving
scheme is appropriate for producing the realities we expect. " I would
add one more problem: Calculate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

And in any case it gives up MWI...which is what I said.

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/2768bd9e-d003-658f-f8b2-eced2b30a2be%40verizon.net.

Re: Wave structure of matter


All paths lead to histories.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9210004.pdf

@philipthrift

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:43:46 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:27:15 PM UTC-5, Eva wrote:
>>
>> Hello 
>>
>> I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot 
>> crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet. 
>> Here is one and very brief: 
>>
>> http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm
>>  
>
>
> Some years ago Wolff's ideas came up. I judged largely that one should not 
> put a whole lot of stock in them. He has these ideas about incoming and 
> outgoing waves with every event in the universe or some such thing. As for 
> these being useful physics there is not a lot there. With every decoherent 
> event or a measurement this happens. Below is a path integration diagram 
> which illustrates how a summation of all possible histories of a 
> decoherence on some set of paths is equal to the whole. This might be 
> similar to Wolff's ideas, but expressed in more rigorous terms.
>
> Mach's principle is a guiding idea that motivated Einstein. In a sense the 
> mass-energy “out there” generates curvature of spacetime that influences 
> mass-energy “here.” So the idea has a bit of relevance. However, the full 
> idea of matter everywhere establishing inertial locally has not really 
> materialized. There is no general principle whereby a local timelike 
> direction can be parallel translated everywhere in general spacetime 
> manifolds. Since mass-energy is the generator of time translations, energy 
> or mass-energy it is then not possible to formulate a principle quite in 
> the form that Ernst Mach may have envisioned. 
>
> LC
>
> [image: path integral on two sets of paths.PNG]
>
>
>

-- 
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/292c3c3f-fc8b-44b1-8182-696e922c746e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:57:10 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:57:30 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:32:32 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:50:12 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:34:42 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:31:31 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:13:22 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 ~ (/^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 (/^a)k^a ≥ 
> (/^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 
>>>
>>
>> Thermal equilibrium is not possible with quantum fields in curved 
>> spacetiome, nor is is likely in quantum gravity. The reason is not too 
>> hard 
>> to see. Suppose you have a black hole in a thermal background with the 
>> same 
>> temperature as its horizon T ~ 1/8M. The black hole has an 
>> equiprobability 
>> of absorbing or emitting a photon with energy δM The temperature then 
>> adjusts as T - δT ~ 1/8(M + δM) or T + δT ~ 1/8(M - δM) and is shifted 
>> away 
>> from thermal equality. This will then enhance the probability the black 
>> hole either then grows by absorbing more photons or by emitting them. 
>> There 
>> is no thermal equilibrium. Quantum gravitation is likely the same, for 
>> the 
>> effective specific heat of event horizons is negative. What I wrote 
>> above 
>> is in effect a more general form of this.
>>
>> Now a gemish of particles or a gas can be in thermal equilibrium in 
>> spacetime. 
>>
>
> *Doesn't this characterize the universe before inflation began? If 
> not, then what? AG*
>

 No, the large plasma of particles was generated in the post 
 inflationary period with reheating or the collapse of the vacuum or 
 inflaton.

 LC

>>>
>>> If not a plasma of particles before inflation, then what was it -- a 
>>> soup of photons, or what? Also, although I really don't know much about 
>>> BH's, your analysis above depends on a boundary between the BH and what's 
>>> beyond it. In the pre-inflation universe there was no internal boundary 
>>> within the universe, so I don't see the relevance of the BH analogy. AG 
>>>
>>
>> I will write it one more time. Particles and radiation emerged in the 
>> observable universe, or this pocket world, with the collapse of the vacuum 
>> energy or inflaton by the mass-gap. The drop in vacuum energy produced the 
>> matter and radiation around us.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> OK; no

Re: Wave structure of matter

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>
> Interesting! 
> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide: 

I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's 
conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said 
such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 

Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost 
anything. That is how these things work and why they persist. This only 
talks about lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing 
thunderbolts. It say nothing of real significance.

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/9f2ceaed-2f58-4a5a-a3d1-2550e620f07d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wave structure of matter

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:27:15 PM UTC-5, Eva wrote:
>
> Hello 
>
> I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot 
> crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet. 
> Here is one and very brief: 
>
> http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm
>  

Some years ago Wolff's ideas came up. I judged largely that one should not 
put a whole lot of stock in them. He has these ideas about incoming and 
outgoing waves with every event in the universe or some such thing. As for 
these being useful physics there is not a lot there. With every decoherent 
event or a measurement this happens. Below is a path integration diagram 
which illustrates how a summation of all possible histories of a 
decoherence on some set of paths is equal to the whole. This might be 
similar to Wolff's ideas, but expressed in more rigorous terms.

Mach's principle is a guiding idea that motivated Einstein. In a sense the 
mass-energy “out there” generates curvature of spacetime that influences 
mass-energy “here.” So the idea has a bit of relevance. However, the full 
idea of matter everywhere establishing inertial locally has not really 
materialized. There is no general principle whereby a local timelike 
direction can be parallel translated everywhere in general spacetime 
manifolds. Since mass-energy is the generator of time translations, energy 
or mass-energy it is then not possible to formulate a principle quite in 
the form that Ernst Mach may have envisioned. 

LC

[image: path integral on two sets of paths.PNG]

-- 
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/058995f0-2c00-4dfa-83c5-940bad5cb07c%40googlegroups.com.

Cosmic Controversies


https://voices.uchicago.edu/cosmiccontroversies/


A conference organized by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
Saturday October 5 – Tuesday October 8
UChicago Gleacher Center, Chicago, IL



October 5-8, 2019
Saturday | Sunday | Monday | Tuesday

SATURDAY OCTOBER 5

MORNING
7:30am -8:30am

Registration and Continental Breakfast 

8:30am -12:30pm

Framing talk
“Where are we in cosmology today?”
Simon White


Invited talks
1) “What is the resolution of the current H0 discrepancy?”
Convenors: Wendy Freedman and Kimmy Wu

2) “Is a theory beyond Cold Dark Matter needed to describe structure 
formation?”
Convenors: Chihway Chang and Andrey Kravtsov

AFTERNOON
1:30 – 5:30pm

Panels
“What is the resolution of the current H0 discrepancy?”
Chair: Wendy Freedman; Panelists: George Efstathiou, Adam Riess and Licia 
Verde

“Is a theory beyond Cold Dark Matter needed to describe structure 
formation?”
Chair: Andrey Kravtsov; Panelists: Bhuvnesh Jain, Manoj Kaplinghat, and 
Risa Wechsler

EVENING

Reception
Reception and poster viewing at Gleacher Center

SUNDAY OCTOBER 6

MORNING
9am – 12:30pm

Invited talks
3) “What is the explanation of Cosmic Acceleration?”
Convenors: Josh Frieman and Maca Lagos

4) “Can Inflation be transformed into a fundamental theory of the early 
Universe?”
Convenors: Wayne Hu and Marco Raveri

AFTERNOON
1:30 – 5:30pm

Panels
“What is the explanation of Cosmic Acceleration? “
Chair: Josh Frieman; Panelists: Andy Albrecht, Saul Perlmutter and Rachel 
Rosen

“Can Inflation be transformed into a fundamental theory of the early 
Universe?”
Chair: Wayne Hu; Panelists: Marc Kamionkowski, Justin Khoury and Hirosi 
Ooguri

EVENING
6:30 – 9:30pm

Banquet
Dinner at UChicago – ERC 161 + atrium
Speaker: Marc Davis

,,,

@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/2afc2f4f-8b56-44f4-a804-e2dc1c18d8d5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wave structure of matter


There s a verse:

Thou shalt not quote the scripture one's fed,
but the poets of maverick muse instead.

@philipthrift

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>
> Interesting! 
> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide: 
>

-- 
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/fe02fedf-94bd-4c14-9b05-f52c35347f36%40googlegroups.com.

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



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>
>>
>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>
>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by 
>> the collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon 
>> the collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>
>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
>> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
>> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>
>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>
> Applied sciences 
>
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>
> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>
> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
> consider MWI in science at all.
>
>
> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut 
> up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 
>
> Bruno
>



It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).

@philipthrift

@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/5005d9cc-5e7f-4e6e-8ef3-188665cadad3%40googlegroups.com.

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

2019-10-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable
>> causal explanation, and Bell rules that out.
>>
>>
>> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In
>> a unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a
>> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality”
>> of Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden
>> variables, Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob.
>> Withe MW, as long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a
>> measurement entangling him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will
>> agree with what the singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor
>> influence has to occur.
>>
>
> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she
> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.
>
>
> Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light,
> but successive entanglement “contagion”.
>
> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”
>
>
> You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including
> those Alice will never been able to access.
>

Your twisting does not get you out of the fact that you have contradicted
yourself.


> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state
>
>
> (Semantic play)
>

You agreed that you did not understand the non-local entangled state.


> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root
> of all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory
> positions.
>
>
> No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full
> explanation.
>

There is no full explanation in any previous post of yours.


> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been
> talking about:
>
> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>
> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>
>
> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I
> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>

For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree
with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the
particles have separated means.


The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all
> Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.
>

Ah, yes. Here we go again. Your really are confused by this state, Bruno.
You keep referring to the fact that it is rotationally invariant, and can
be analysed in any basis, as though that made a substantive difference. The
results obtain in any basis, true. But that is a trivial observation of
symmetry. It does not explain the observed experimental results.



> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for
> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when
> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is
> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-)
> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say,
> 'up’.
>
>
> Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.
>

Read on, old son. You might find that this is mentioned below.


> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob
> gets only the ket |->,
>
>
> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
>

Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
fact is not an explanation.

in the basis of Alice's measurement. Similarly if Alice gets 'down', Bob
> must measure the |+> ket, in Alice's basis. By rotating these kets into his
> local measurement basis, Bob gets  'up' or 'down' with the required
> probabilities.
>
> … relatively to their corresponding Alices, only.
>

Oh dear..


> This is a what your statement "when Alice do a measurement she influences
> and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob" means. And I agree with
> this.
>
>
> I am not sure, because that influence never get higher than the speed of
> light.
>

Who said that it did? Read on and stop interrupting.



> Bob could find a non correlated state, and that will mean that such Bob
> and Alice are in different worlds, and will never meet. The state just
> describes their possible relative states.
>

The state describes the observed results. There are no "other worlds" in
which there are no correlated results.



> So (this all assumes, without loss of generality, a frame in which Alice's
> measurement is first) Alice's measurement does inevitably affect the state
> that Bob can measure.
>
>
> Which Bob? She does not affect Bob’s state

Re: Inflation

2019-10-05 Thread Alan Grayson



On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:57:30 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:32:32 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:50:12 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:34:42 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:31:31 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:13:22 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> 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 ~ (/^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 (/^a)k^a ≥ 
 (/^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 
>>
>
> Thermal equilibrium is not possible with quantum fields in curved 
> spacetiome, nor is is likely in quantum gravity. The reason is not too 
> hard 
> to see. Suppose you have a black hole in a thermal background with the 
> same 
> temperature as its horizon T ~ 1/8M. The black hole has an 
> equiprobability 
> of absorbing or emitting a photon with energy δM The temperature then 
> adjusts as T - δT ~ 1/8(M + δM) or T + δT ~ 1/8(M - δM) and is shifted 
> away 
> from thermal equality. This will then enhance the probability the black 
> hole either then grows by absorbing more photons or by emitting them. 
> There 
> is no thermal equilibrium. Quantum gravitation is likely the same, for 
> the 
> effective specific heat of event horizons is negative. What I wrote above 
> is in effect a more general form of this.
>
> Now a gemish of particles or a gas can be in thermal equilibrium in 
> spacetime. 
>

 *Doesn't this characterize the universe before inflation began? If not, 
 then what? AG*

>>>
>>> No, the large plasma of particles was generated in the post inflationary 
>>> period with reheating or the collapse of the vacuum or inflaton.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> If not a plasma of particles before inflation, then what was it -- a soup 
>> of photons, or what? Also, although I really don't know much about BH's, 
>> your analysis above depends on a boundary between the BH and what's beyond 
>> it. In the pre-inflation universe there was no internal boundary within the 
>> universe, so I don't see the relevance of the BH analogy. AG 
>>
>
> I will write it one more time. Particles and radiation emerged in the 
> observable universe, or this pocket world, with the collapse of the vacuum 
> energy or inflaton by the mass-gap. The drop in vacuum energy produced the 
> matter and radiation around us.
>
> LC
>

OK; no particles or radiation prior to the onseet of inflation. But 
supposing your model is correct, given the incredibly small size of the 
universe as inflation proceeded, wouldn't those particles and radiation, 
once created, have been in thermal equilibrium

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

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal 
>> explanation, and Bell rules that out.
> 
> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a 
> unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a 
> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality” of 
> Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden variables, 
> Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob. Withe MW, as 
> long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a measurement entangling 
> him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will agree with what the 
> singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor influence has to occur.
> 
> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she 
> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.

Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, but 
successive entanglement “contagion”.

> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”

You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including those 
Alice will never been able to access. 

> 
> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state

(Semantic play)

> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root of 
> all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory positions.

No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full 
explanation.

> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
> talking about:
>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
> This refers to two spacetime locations;

You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I disagree 
with this interpretation since the start.

The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all 
Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.

> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for 
> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when 
> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is 
> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-) 
> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say, 'up’.

Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.

> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob gets 
> only the ket |->,

That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that state, 
and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 

> in the basis of Alice's measurement. Similarly if Alice gets 'down', Bob must 
> measure the |+> ket, in Alice's basis. By rotating these kets into his local 
> measurement basis, Bob gets  'up' or 'down' with the required probabilities.

… relatively to their corresponding Alices, only.

> 
> This is a what your statement "when Alice do a measurement she influences and 
> changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob" means. And I agree with this.

I am not sure, because that influence never get higher than the speed of light. 
Bob could find a non correlated state, and that will mean that such Bob and 
Alice are in different worlds, and will never meet. The state just describes 
their possible relative states.

> So (this all assumes, without loss of generality, a frame in which Alice's 
> measurement is first) Alice's measurement does inevitably affect the state 
> that Bob can measure.

Which Bob? She does not affect Bob’s state “physically”, she just learn that 
she is in a universe in which she can access only to the Bob who will find the 
correlated state, and never access to the Bob who get different states. No FTL 
influence.

If there is only one Alice and Bob, then there would be FTL influences.

> The question then is, how does this effect come about? What is the mechanism? 
> You appear to be only able to think of some FTL influence.

No. You are the one inking this. With the MW, at no moment Alice change the 
state of Bob. She just change her own map of histories available. She knows 
that she can no more met a Bob with another state than the correlated one.
That is why I take Aspect experience as an evidence of the other worlds, as I 
do not give any sense to any FTL influence. 

> But that cannot work. There are a lot of problems with such an idea. Apart 
> from violations of special relativity, it would involve the exchange of some 
> particle or tachyon that conveys Alice's result and polarizer orientation to 
> Bob *before* he makes his measurement. Dynamics for that might be 
> conceivable, but there is a problem in deciding whether it is a particle or

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



> On 5 Oct 2019, at 01:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2019 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Sure it's "local" in Hilbert space.  But that's not what is violated in 
>>> tests of Bell's inequality.
>> 
>> No, but what is violated in Bell’s inequality is the idea that the state in 
>> Hilbert space describe a physical reality,
> 
> In another post you just expounded at length on why "reality" is not well 
> defined and shouldn't be referred to .

I guess I was talking of “Reality”. The basic ontology. It is not well defined, 
but it can be the subject of study, in theology/metaphysics.


> 
>> when it describes only the relative first person plural sharable map of the 
>> computations/histories that they can access to, personally.
> 
> No.  That, in the MWI is merely the projection onto one subspace,

I agree. 



> the subspace in which the observers and instruments all register a particular 
> measurement result.  The state in Hilbert space has projections on other 
> subspaces in which other results are seen. This idea of the state in Hilbert 
> space is essential to MWI.  You can't deny Hilbert space and keep MWI.

I have not done that. All projections are taken into account in the MWI.

My only point is that there is no FTL influence when we abandon the collapse 
postulate, *and* that there are FTL influence (despite no signalling) when we 
introduce the collapse postulate, and don’t throw away all possibility of 
physical realism.

Bruno



> 
>> See my recent post to Bruce.
> 
> I did, and answered it too.
> 
> 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/298d8f55-2896-d2de-5e5f-27c206d7cdbb%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/518B0F00-305A-4E56-94B4-BD0E569EB61C%40ulb.ac.be.

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



> On 5 Oct 2019, at 01:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2019 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence "The 
>> wave function itself is non-local”.
> 
> The wave-function of two entangled EPR particles is a function of two 
> variables, which are space-like separate locations.

No problem with this. This does not imply any FTL, unlike a rigid ruler in 
classical mechanics, for example.

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/4190460a-357c-7e0c-6ca5-2c96703bb0ec%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/361DF98B-0871-4B6B-85B7-102CFCD15143%40ulb.ac.be.

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


> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
> 
> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the Copenhagen-von 
> Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at the universe, 
> like materialism requires a god selecting a unique computation, but that’s no 
> more doing science.
> 
> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any intelligible 
> sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with Mechanism, but also with 
> the scientific attitude, I would say.
> 
> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 1p 
> plural observable and sharable reality.
> 
> Why to believe in any “world"? 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applied sciences 
> 
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>  
> 
> 
> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
> 
> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
> consider MWI in science at all.

That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut up 
and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 

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/e2355243-0e17-4fb3-ae29-6de5d2e5f555%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/F1AA46A2-5341-4931-8193-AD39A83C0B7A%40ulb.ac.be.

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


> On 4 Oct 2019, at 19:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > 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.  
> 
> Everett extracts it from the first person indeterminacy is 
> self-superposition, which is the very idea of the MW or Many-histories. In 
> his long text,  He uses Mechanism quasi-explicitly. Its only problem is that 
> he has to extracts the wave from *all* computation, and incompleteness makes 
> this happens. The “worlds” are just computations seen from the self-aware 
> creature supported by those computations.
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good analysis of Everett Many Worlds, which is in stark contrast to 
> a materialist (observer-free) quantum mechanics.
> 
> But Many Worlds is another indication of physicists leaving the material 
> world behind and entering a world of immateriality.

Indeed, and that is a necessity when we assume the mechanist hypothesis in the 
philosophy of mind/cognitive science.

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/44f02a8e-3b21-4ea5-acb8-5f7b1dfabd5e%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/9CF0411D-12A3-4627-8D1F-7D9B2B18A26D%40ulb.ac.be.

Quantum promo supremacy



The "supreme" promotions of quantum programming/computing come from IBM 
(Qiskit).

https://twitter.com/qiskit 

Quantum Games — Programming on Quantum Computers Ep 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmCSxfrK_Mg


@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/89ea4086-fe7c-4498-9a62-61b8a2ebf805%40googlegroups.com.

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