- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> Dan wrote:
> So if I had a rod that reached from here to the moon and was able to
> ma
Dan wrote:
For example, we can make a spot on the moon travel faster than the speed
of light. Shoot a laser at the moon and change it's angle. One can
make the bright spot travel from one side of the moon to the other in a
microsecondwhich is many times faster than the speed of light. But,
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> A couple of questions about what I believe are typos, but want to make
sure:
Yup, those ar
A couple of questions about what I believe are typos, but want to make sure:
Dan Minette wrote:
We can check this at all three angles by setting both measuring devices in
the same direction. We could look at one million pairs at 0 deg, one
million pairs at 37 deg, and one million pairs at 74 deg.
The next step in our consideration is a more detailed look at spacelike
correlations and hidden variables. In order to do this, we will use
measurements at three angles in the x-y plane (with the direction of travel
along the z axis. Using the transfer between Cartesian and polar
coordinates wher
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
>
> I've read that book and some more technical articles on string theory.
> W
Dan said:
> I glanced at that book and saw a couple of references to how string theory
> should get rid of infinities. I saw nothing that indicated that he said
> that quantum indeterminacy would go away. Getting rid of infinities is
> quite plausible, I think. I'm still working on showing how
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
>
> On 21/03/2005, at 3:23 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Ray Ludenia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hardly seems likely. Dan is from the famous "shut up and calculate"
> school after all.
Huh? Could've fooled me.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 21/03/2005, at 3:23 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In reletivistic quantum mechanics, this is stated as "Spacelike
operators
must commute." So, going back to our example of two spin 1/2
particles in
a spin zero state, if we have call the operator for measuring
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In reletivistic quantum mechanics, this is stated as "Spacelike operators
> must commute." So, going back to our example of two spin 1/2 particles in
> a spin zero state, if we have call the operator for measuring the spin of
> particle 1: A and the oper
The next step I want to consider is the work from the mid thirties to about
the mid 60s. During this time, there were two developments that were
important to our discussion of the foundation of QM. The first was the
development of quantum field theory, or reletivistic quantum mechanics.
The secon
Since there didn't seem to be objections to the last bit of formalism, let
me take the next step. I would like to consider a system of two spin 1/2
particles produced from a spin 0 state. As an aside, actual experiments
that have been conducted are a bit more complicated than this idealized
exper
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> which is now much clearer to me than before. Sin(x)^2 and cos(x)^2
> refer to probability ampli
On 13/03/2005, at 9:57 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The best place to start, I think, is spin. My old foundations of QM
teacher said that spin was probably the most QMish of all the aspects
of
QM.
So, lets consider a spin 1/2 particle: the electron. Spin is intrinsic
angular momentum. It cannot be th
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> [those are some good refs, Dan
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
[those are some good refs, Dan -- I need some time to digest them
though. ;) ]
This is getting close to the time where the introduction of a bit of
formalism might be helpful. I think I can do it without going too deep
into the math.
That's probabl
My understanding is that physicists who talk about you as the observer
who causes a collapse of a wave function, who say that
... observing an experiment is what changes its outcome ...
are being solipsistic, since none can prove that there is anything
outside of oneself. They try to speak l
On 08/03/2005, at 8:23 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote in a fascinating
exchange with Dan:
Or the suggestion that detecting things a given way once will set
"pointers" such that those things will more naturally tend that way in
the future.
Seems that is just a more radical expression of the Practice
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >> Have you had a chance to lo
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>> Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing
that
>>> goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's
>>> location
>>> and motion simultaneously,
>
>> Can you point out where you got this
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing that
goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's
location
and motion simultaneously,
Can you point out where you got this impression?
_The Elegant Universe_, Brian Gre
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
A quick reply with a question.
> Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing
On Mar 5, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The important thing to take away from this quote is the size of the
BEC,
several millimeters. That is definitely macroscopic, it's a size that
you see on a grade student's ruler.
That is compelling, and not something I'd been aware of earlier.
I've
At 04:11 PM Sunday 3/6/2005, maru wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
...
Looking at the web, experiments are now ongoing to have superpositions of
macroscopic currents, using a Josephine junction. It is always possible
that QM will break down at this point, and that there is exciting new
physics somewhere
Dan Minette wrote:
...
Looking at the web, experiments are now ongoing to have superpositions of
macroscopic currents, using a Josephine junction. It is always possible
that QM will break down at this point, and that there is exciting new
physics somewhere around mesoscopic physics. I would rate
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > But, you miss why QM is defe
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
>
> > Also, its
> > worth noting, that there have been experimental confirmat
On Mar 4, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM
(not
just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since
QM
is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false.
Almost as thou
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
But, you miss why QM is defended as it is. The
reaction is as though you said "but evolution is just a theory." What
would be helpful in thinking about this is asking why Feynman's
response
was to say "shut up and calculate" instead of pursuing the
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM
(not
> just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since
QM
> is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false.
> Almost as though it's a religion.
>
So what about indete
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> Sometimes I feel like Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope
> -- t
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, I wrote:
In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the
results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a
separate
reality but the interface between that separate reality and our
minds, a
lot of things fall into place rather nic
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
What wiggle room? Do you realize what you are saying?
Yes, I do. I am saying that QM is
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Are scientific proofs acceptable
[two replies combined here, one to RS and one to maru]
On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's
partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous
conclusions, and to me the most parsimoni
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe.
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>> Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
>
> Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
> principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
>
> I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: brin:quantum darwin?
> Did I imagine the _Nature_ reference (Dec 2004) right at the top of the
> post and collaspe the wave function?
No, Nature
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's
partially correct,
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote:
> FYI
>
> Natural Selection Acts on the Qu
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote:
FYI
Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23,
2004)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html
I saw the same idea floated a couple months back on another list. My
reaction then is what it is now: What a load of
43 matches
Mail list logo