More Trump physics? What's a measurement? I have no clue. AG On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 4:27:00 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *There is no requirement for an infinite number of degrees of freedom.* >> > > In physics there will never be a theory that requires infinite degrees of > freedom, at least not until somebody performs an experiment with infinite > accuracy, and I'm not holding my breath for that. > > > *Escape of just one IR photon to outer space is sufficient to destroy >> reversibility.* >> > > Sometimes, usually in fact, but not always. Not if 2 quite different > events can produce the same identical photon that escapes into infinite > space, and not if the photon is not even allowed to escape but Is absorbed > by a photographic plate or a brick wall. A good example of this sort of > thing would be the quantum eraser experiment, or the delayed choice > experiment. Or just study how a Mach–Zehnder interferometer works. These > experiments are possible but they're not easy because the experimenter must > make sure that there's a difference between the two worlds but the > difference must be very small so a practical way can be found to make the > two worlds identical again so they can be nudged back together again into > one world. > > *> The definition of 'world' in the context of QM is made exact precisely >> because of this irreversibility.* >> > > Only in pure mathematics are definitions precise, in science and and > everything else they're just an approximation, a label for an idea > learned through examples, a collection of words that are defined by other > words. And Hugh Everett invented the theory but he didn't invent the phrase > "Many Worlds", that was done by others and only gives a very approximate > idea of what the theory is about. According to Everett the debate on if > matter is made of particles or waves is over, it's made of waves. And in > that theory the approximate definition of the world "world" is a collection > of different waves that include at least one conscious being that is > approximately the same in all of them. > > *> Worlds are well-defined * >> > > Words are defined by other words and those words are in turn defined by > yet more words. Even the word "defined" is defined by words. But whatever > physical reality turns out to be at its most fundamental level I think we > can be pretty sure it's not made of words. > > John K Clark See my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5f479d74-da38-45fb-9b82-57c25672c4acn%40googlegroups.com.
