On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:42:51 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 10:32 pm, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, >> >> >> > >> Everettian worlds follow from assuming that the Schrödinger equation >> applies everywhere without exception, so that all physical evolution is >> unitary. A change in the underlying physics -- such as a change in the >> value of fundamental constants, Planck's constant or Newton's constant for >> example -- would not be unitary, so cannot occur in MWI. >> >> >> >> Why can't it be unitary?? Show me why if >> >> Newton's constant had any value other than >> >> 6.754* 10^-11 m3 kg^−1 s^−2 >> >> the sum of all quantum probabilities would no longer add up to exactly 1. >> If you can really do that then you've just derived Newton's constant >> directly from first principles and you should but a ticket to Stockholm >> right now because you're absolutely certain to win the next nobel Prize. >> >> Although unitarity does mean that probabilities always sum to unity, that >>> is a consequence of unitary evolution, not a definition of it. A unitary >>> transformation is one that can be reversed: so the unitary operator U can >>> be written as exp(-iH), for example, and the complex conjugate (or the >>> adjoint for hermitian operators) is the inverse transformation. >>> >> *Considering the evolution of the wf, if there exists a DE that describes >>> the collapse process, would it necessarily be nonlinear? Is nonlinear a >>> problem; that is, what is the downside to nonlinear? How would it effect >>> the issue of hidden variables? TIA, AG * >>> >> > Collapse would be non-linear and non-unitary -- > intrinsically non-reversible. This is not necessarily a problem since there > are plenty of non-linearities in physics. It has nothing to do with hidden > variables. > > *Why would it be non linear? Brent claimed (on page 1)* > > > Page 1 of what? >
*On Google it's organized as pages, now up to page 15. Go to top of thread and read second message by Brent. AG * > > * that if the QM could be made deterministic, say by a DE that described > collapse, it would imply awful consequences, such as the future determining > the past.* > > > No, it wouldn't imply that. > > * Would making QM into a deterministic theory imply an inconsistency in > the postulates of QM? TIA, AG* > > > QM in MWI is deterministic. Bohm's theory is deterministic, though > expressly non-local. Determinism is not really an issue. One world theories > are intrinsically random, not deterministic. > *How can MWI be deterministic if it can't tell us what outcome we will observe in this world, or any other? AG * > > Bruce > -- 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.
