On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 9:12:02 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2019 6:04
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 9:12:02 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric
On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already
relativistic particles and covariant.
*I
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic
>> particles and covariant.
>>
>
> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force,
On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic
particles and covariant.
*I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not
the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/2019 4:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21,
On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but
he seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some
ways that is what Born said.
The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space
with
> On 20 Feb 2019, at 00:00, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/17/2019 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.
>>> Why not? It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we
>>> know...so why would it disbelieve us.
>> Tha
On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/21/2019 5:27 AM,
This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he
seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways
that is what Born said.
The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with
vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:57:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:26, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:23:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2019, at 20:18, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 18,
> On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:26, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:23:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2019, at 20:18, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> >
14 matches
Mail list logo
