On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 5:52 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> Not intending to insult, but overall your response is an good example of >> Trump Physics. > > Not intending to insult, but you sir are an ass. John K Clark For example, you discuss measuring spin, Up or Dn, while denying you know >> what measurement is. You claim AG can be observed in X or Y by copies of >> AG, by a wave which by definition has no definite location. You ignore or >> to flat-out admit that the HUP implies the failure of classical >> determinism. And so forth. AG >> > > I meant to write, " ... You claim AG can be observed AT POINTS X and Y by > copies of AG, ... ." AG > >> >> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 4:17:31 AM UTC-7 [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> On Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *> Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited >>>> precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the advance >>>> of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case.* >>>> >>> >>> You don't need infinite precision to state that an electron is spinning >>> up or down and right or left, it would only take two bits of information >>> to do so, and yet we are unable to obtain those two bits; we can choose to >>> determine with absolute certainty if the electron is spinning right or left >>> but then we'd have no idea about the up or down spin, it would be >>> completely 50-50; or we can determine with absolute certainty if the >>> electron is spinning up or down but then we'd have no idea about the left >>> or right spin. We can do one or the other but not both. Why? Is it because >>> there is some physical mechanism that prevents us from having both bits of >>> information and thus making complete predictions impossible, or is it >>> because until it is measured (whatever the hell that is) the electron >>> simply doesn't have both properties? Many Worlds is a realistic >>> interpretation of quantum mechanics, it says particles always have a >>> definite spin, regardless of if it is "observed" or not, in fact the >>> electron has every spin not forbidden by the laws of physics, and the same >>> thing is true for a position and momentum, and the change in energy over a >>> time interval, although Intelligent entities in any one branch of the >>> multiverse may forever lack the ability to obtain all that information. >>> Copenhagen is not a realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it says >>> these properties don't even exist until they are measured, and they can't >>> give a precise or even approximate meaning to what they meant by "measured". >>> >>> >>>> *> Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation* >>>> >>> >>> We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated and Bell >>> proved if it is violated then the universe cannot be: >>> >>> 1) Local >>> 2) Deterministic >>> 3) Realistic, >>> >>> At least one of those three things must be false. However Many Worlds >>> Insists that it is all 3. It can get away with that because Bell >>> assumed the collapse of the wave function is a real physical phenomenon >>> in his derivation of this inequality, Copenhagen makes the same >>> assumption, so it must junk at least one of those 3, maybe more. But >>> Many Worlds says the wave function never collapses so it can have all 3. >>> >>> Bell on Bell’s theorem: The changing face of nonlocality >>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03521.pdf> >>> >>> > *It occurred to me that when solving Schroedinger's equation, one >>>> needs initial conditions. * >>> >>> >>> It's not just Schroedinger's equation even in Newtonian physics and even >>> if you know every single one of the physical laws involved perfectly you >>> can't make predictions at all, not even approximate ones, if you have no >>> idea about initial conditions. You can't predict where a pendulum will be >>> three seconds from now if you have no idea where it is right now. >>> >>> *> Even if matter waves are ignored in the interpretation of >>>> superposition, a deep mystery remains; why do those waves in the double >>>> slit experiment always result in particle detection at the screen? * >>> >>> >>> Because of Fourier analysis we know that even the most complex waves can >>> be decomposed into an infinite sum of far simpler waves, and one of those >>> simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at point X, and another of >>> those simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at point Y. Many >>> Worlds insist that a particle is just a convenient fiction used by beings >>> in any particular branch of the multiverse, aka a simpler decomposition of >>> the Universal Wave Function. Many Worlds says that matter, and >>> fundamental reality in general, consists of waves not particles. >>> 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/0df25e1b-de6b-408e-b487-b06e8a3db61cn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0df25e1b-de6b-408e-b487-b06e8a3db61cn%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/CAJPayv21Wp%2BCyY7OfH73CF%3D57hZA41%2Bcsmcm4ZG5%2BUZ1FC-XsA%40mail.gmail.com.
