On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:12 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*> Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and > 70% before measurement.* > OK, then if there were 10 observers 3 would see X and 7 would see Y. > *> I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the > probabilities were 100% for each.* > Then everybody *would* see an interference pattern and everybody *would not* see it interference pattern. Perhaps I'm mistaken but something doesn't seem quite right here. *> 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?* > Yes, an external force of some sort would be required for that to happen, so that must be uphill. *> We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree* > Yes, you can call gravitational potential energy positive if you like, but then to be consistent you'd have to call Kinetic energy negative, and moving your test particle would still require an external force, it will still be uphill. > *> the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of > energy, which is an empirical result, * > Exactly, all the arguments I gave would be exactly the same, everytime I use d the word "positive" or "negative" just change the word positive to negative and negative to positive. 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/CAJPayv38sg6Vdg-hF5%2BwP%3D2riK82yZZj%2BiQcmtQCa1gEbH5Y4w%40mail.gmail.com.
