On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 3:05:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2021 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating >>>>> expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space >>>>> , both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive >>>>> kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward >>>>> and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to >>>>> you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a >>>> convention, not a law of physics.* >>>> >>> >>> Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of >>> energy at all. >>> >>> >>>> *>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is >>>> that?)* >>>> >>> >>> I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew >>> what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert >>> Einstein could also answer your question. >>> >>> >>>> > to positive energy. AG >>>> >>> >>> And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams. >>> >>> >>>> *> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total >>>> energy of the universe being exactly zero.* >>>> >>> >>> It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero >>> also >>> pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth >>> who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up >>> that it's probably true. >>> Zero-energy universe >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe> >>> >>> *> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total >>>> energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never >>>> referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.* >>>> >>> >>> That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it >>> makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark >>> Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both >>> of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the >>> word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of >>> Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud >>> of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a property of space is >>> for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that >>> it does. >>> >>> >>>> *> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea >>>> that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,* >>>> >>> >>> Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical >>> evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general. >>> >> >> >> *Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and >> 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states >> simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates >> one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is >> more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states >> simultaneously, or in neither state? AG * >> >> >> You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of >> vector spaces. If your state is having a momentum on a heading of 45deg, >> then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>. "Superposition" is only >> relative to some basis. We right things that way when we have instruments >> that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE. >> > > *I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition > of NE even if we can't measure in that direction? * > > > Sure we could write it that way. Any pure state if conceptually a single > ray in Hilbert space. That it's written in terms of components that are > observable is up to us. > > > *More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote > immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a > system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement* > > > I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the > context that the system is not in an eigenstate *of the variable measured* > before it is measured. That just means the state NE is not North or East > before you measure with your North-or-East instrument. > > Brent > *I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured". IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%. Consequently, it's more logical -- indeed MUCH more logical -- to assume that the system is NOT simultaneously in all these states, and is indeed in NONE of them before measurement, which is consistent with what I believe Bohr and CI assert. This would seem to dispel a current deep seated myth about CM. Do you understand and agree with my point? AG* *On another issue, whether it's legitimate to write such a superposition in terms of eigenstates that cannot presently be measured. I think it is, because any ray in a Hilbert space can so written (that is, any pure state) and such eigenstates MIGHT be measurement with some advanced technology or concepts. So, mathematically, such states can be written regardless of whether the superposed eigenstates are presently measureable. AG* > > *, and defeats the illusion/delusion that systems before measurement are > simultaneously in several eigenstates. AG* > >> >> Brent >> >> >> *Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 >> in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work >> done against the field? Yes or No? We can call this work negative or >> positive. Do you agree the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect >> conservation of energy, which is an empirical result, or what works in >> hydroelectric facility. AG* >> >>> >>> John K Clark See what's on 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/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- > 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/18c9d10b-59c4-43c5-977d-a02927551553n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18c9d10b-59c4-43c5-977d-a02927551553n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/c4d39a77-ee67-4f73-a1a3-9a1f0cac81e1n%40googlegroups.com.
