On n Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 11:02 Tim May wrote:
>On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states. I didn't think I would
>> have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but perhaps it was a bit
>> too subtle. Google "Bell" and
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states.
>
> I didn't think I would have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but
> perhaps
> it was a bit too subtle. Google "Bell" and "inequalities", and go from
> there.
I disagree. Bell's
> Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>> Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
>>
>>> And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't
> say
>>> that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
>>> wouldn't help you predic
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information
> about position and change in position that you can collect. It does not
> rule out internal states.
Yes it does, it says that any time you measure a system it WILL be in
At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
>
>> And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't
say
>> that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
>> wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
>
>Yes it does.
>
>
> Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
> At 03:21 PM 7/14/02 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> Eric Cordian wrote:
>>> Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum
> mechanics
>>> works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
>>
>> Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive is
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
> And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't say
> that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
> wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
Other rules do; Uncertaintly Principle, 2nd Law for sta
At 03:21 PM 7/14/02 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>Eric Cordian wrote:
>> Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum
mechanics
>> works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
>
>Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive isotope will decay, if you
please.
You mean "t
Eric Cordian wrote:
> Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum mechanics
> works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive isotope will decay, if you please.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html h
Time postulates:
> No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded, everything
> we know about science (evidence, archaeology, measurements, ...) points
> to a _single_ past.
The laws of physics, including the laws of quantum mechanics, are
symmetric with respect to the arrow of t
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Tim May wrote:
> No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded,
> everything we know about science (evidence, archaeology,
> measurements, ...) points to a _single_ past.
>
>
Sorry about this misdirection to the CP list. It was meant to go t
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 07:43 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Tim,
>
> Are you tacitly assuming some kind of communication between
> observers
> when you make the claim of a "convergence"? Adsent said communications,
> could we show that the convergence would still obtain? Have you
12 matches
Mail list logo
