On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:51:57 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
