On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Bruno: I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two >> slits >> >> Richard: You should be ashamed >> >> >> That's hardly an argument. >> > > Agreed > >> >> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical >> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make >> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes >> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy >> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used >> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, >> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we >> can stop here ... >> > > Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The > incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics. > So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would drop by 1/r^2 > where r is distance from the hole. > If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy > density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical > sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the > photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to > make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is > wrong. > > With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy > and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total > energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of > detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to > detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original > photon. > > > > ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted > in branches, not in the multiverse. > Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the quantum probabilities > > > > > > > But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people, >> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which, >> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are >> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice >> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference. >> > > > My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. > > > That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon, > making directly the physical into something psychological. > > Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each branch > > > > Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could > possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional > muliverse that I call the Math Space........ With collapse, the physical > space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just > how I see reality. > > > OK. > > > > For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the >> wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all >> computations. >> >> > I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is > illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. > > > And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before the > 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird, > because there are no evidence for it. > I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books? > > > > I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that > waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is > not an argument.. > > My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely > physical as MWI poses, > > > Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist > (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing > the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when > seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not > satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats. > > > Yes, many-dream arithmetic is part of Math Space > > would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and > more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be > illusion. > > > Unless energy is an illusion. > Of course, along with matter. > > > > Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from > Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block > multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy. > > > Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist > theology. But the logic of self-reference seems to be capable of explaining > it, by imposing reversibility and linearity at the sigma_1 bottom (the > global indeterminacy domain of the first person). > > > > > The alternative is some kind of mathematical wave collapse to conserve > both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where > time matters. > > > From the first person point of view. > > Yes! Each branch that a particular person is following (with wave collapse at every junction) is a unique POV. > > I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties, that > collapse may be instantaneous. > > > Except for being macroscopic state, I am not sure why BEC entanglement is > so special. > > Experimentally entangled BECs have EPR properties including instant transfer of correlations. > > > > But that collapse mechanism uses experiment-derived properties rather than > math for lack of any time dependence. > > > You can elaborate on this, as I am not sure to follow. > The experimental data indicates that the correlations of entangled but separate BECs are transferred faster than detector accuracy. I am willing to assume instant transfer. If so, there is no time dependence- no process that math could predict. Correlations are of course a holding-place word like entanglement where we lump all properties we cannot explain. Theoretical physics work on black holes concludes that for black holes to communicate classically, the correlations must be monogamous- one on one.. That is, all black holes communicate quantum mechanically over Einstein-Rosen ER Bridges. But to communicate classically, that is to talk, you must shrink the area of all ERs to zero (compactification) except one, ER throat area being proportional to entanglement entropy. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf Hypothesizing that particles may behave like black holes, that explains wave collapse using quantum geometry.. arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0405152.pdf Richard Ruquist 20141124 www.bostonalarm.com > > Bruno > > > > > Richard > >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy. >>> >>> >>> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I >>> doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I >>> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition >>> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can >>> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put >>> a zero. >>> >>> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, >>> and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all >>> computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical >>> reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative >>> notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win >>> the limit measure "game". >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a >>>>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would >>>>>> say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse. >>>>> >>>>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe. >>>> >>>> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the >>>> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are >>>> only approximately defined? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
