On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 6:21:47 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> ha scritto: > > > > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *Right. I was just making the observation that when we don't see advanced > EM waves (coming from the future?), it's generally not seen as a big deal > and they're ignored. But when decoherence or the MWI implies the creation > of full-blown worlds (that we can't observe), there seems to be a large > body of opinion that accepts this bizarre result without serious criticism > that there's no mechanism or process for creating full-blown worlds. No. I > don't believe in such worlds. I tend to think a large segment of > professional physicists have gone mad. AG* > > > Except you've got it backwards. There is a mechanism and process for > creating them FAPP, evolution by the Schroedinger equation, which is the > same process used in predicting results. But there is no physical > mechanism for making them disappear....there's a mathematical process, i.e. > taking the partial trace which is the same as applying a projection > operator (with a little better justification). > > > There's a distinction between subspaces that are disjoint and inaccessible > to each other, and their non existence. Apparently you want to make the > case that their mutual inaccessibility is equivalent to their non existence. > > > Operationally, it is. > > Brent > > Sometimes the principle of conservation of quantum information > (no-cloning, no-deleting) seems to have something to do with MWI - > conservation of quantum information and "relative state" formulation both > depend on linearity( ?) - in the sense that any other world must be > inaccessible (just to conserve quantum information). > > s. >
Is there an established result and general consensus in the physics community that information is conserved in classical physics? In quantum physics? Consider this a Yes or No question. AG > > "In conclusion, we have shown that any theory for which dynamics is linear > with respect to stochastic mixing, the no-cloning and no-deleting > principles follow from the law of conservation of information, and from > whether two copies contain a different amount of information than a single > copy. In particular, this result allows us to understand the physical > reason for which perfect cloning or > deleting are impossible. They are forbidden because they infringe a > principle of conservation of information. Classically, two copies and one > copy contain the same information. However in the quantum case, these > information contents are generically different, putting restrictions on > cloning and deleting processes." > > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038 > <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407038> > > see also, for entropy issues, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306044 > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
