On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:51:57 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local >>> operator" in the context of the singlet state. * >>> >>> >>> A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two >>> particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but not both. >>> >> >> >> *I think of an operator in QM as a mathematical tool that gives us the >> possible measurements of some observable, not as a thing located in space, >> so I have no idea what you mean. * >> >> >> I defined it as operating on only one of the particles, not in terms of >> location. I just added location remark as explanation of why it's called >> "non-local". >> > > Isn't an operator generic in the sense that it tells you what's possible > to measure, without discriminating between the particles it is operating ON? > > > No. > > >> >> *BTW, to close a gap on a cosmological issue we discussed earlier here, >> when it's claimed the age of the universe is 13.8 BY, does that include >> both the observable and unobservable regions * >> >> >> Yes. >> > > TY. FWIW, I posed this question since the physics of the unobservable > region is almost certainly identical to the observable region since it is > just the geometry of the expansion that distinguishes them. That being the > case, if the observable region is astronomically small as close to t=0 as > possible using GR, then so is the unobservable region, leading to the > conclusion that the ENTIRE universe (here we're not discussing Multiverse) > was NOT spatially infinite when it came into being, to best of our > knowledge. Do you agree with my conclusion? AG > > > No. >
If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially infinite at that time? TIA, AG > > Brent > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
