Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/9/2017 9:15 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/9/2017 6:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> The difference between spatially flat and asymptotical

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/9/2017 6:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: The difference between spatially flat and asymptotically flat for a huge universe would be virtually impossible to dist

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/9/2017 6:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The difference between spatially flat and asymptotically flat for a huge > universe would be virtually impossible to distinguish by measuring the sum > of angles in a triangle.

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/9/2017 6:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: The difference between spatially flat and asymptotically flat for a huge universe would be virtually impossible to distinguish by measuring the sum of angles in a triangle. Moreover, I don't see how spatially flat can have nothing to do with extent, s

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Already, people like Omnes regard it as a non-problem because decoherence diagonalizes the density matrix FAPP and so it can be interpreted as being the same as a mixed state, which is how classical probability is represented in QM.  But others say FAPP isn't good enough because (1) in principl

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

The difference between spatially flat and asymptotically flat for a huge universe would be virtually impossible to distinguish by measuring the sum of angles in a triangle. Moreover, I don't see how spatially flat can have nothing to do with extent, since in applying Euclidean geometry we surely se

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

How would you define "the measurement problem" to conclude that strictly diagonalizing the density matrix would be a solution? TIA On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic > subquantum dynamics. If you could show t

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

Cosmologist think the universe is spatially flat.  That just means triangles have interior angles summing to 180deg.  It doesn't have anything to do with extent.  But the universe is not flat in spacetime; it's expanding and at an increasing rate. Brent On 11/9/2017 3:10 PM, agrayson2...@gmai

flat vs asymptotically flat universe

IIUC, the difference is huge. In the former case, the universe is open, spatially infinite with infinite mass (assuming a nonzero mass distribution on large scale everywhere), whereas the latter is closed, finite in spatial extent and mass. But I notice that most cosmologists claim the universe

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic subquantum dynamics.  If you could show that the density matrix becomes strictly diagonal in some non-arbitrary way (i.e. described by dynamics) and the eigenvalues obey the Born rule (which I think would follow from Gleason's

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

If what you state is correct, then there's no solution to the measurement problem (if that means discovering a deterministic outcome for individual trials). Why then is the "measurement problem" still considered a problem to be solved? What you've presented is more or less proof that no such so

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

It would make it possible to use EPR like experiments to send signals faster than light...which is to say backward in time.  That would pretty much screw up all known physics...and common sense. Brent On 11/9/2017 7:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the measurement problem were solved in

Consistency of Postulates of QM

If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an INCONSISTENCY in the postulates of QM? TIA. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.