# Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

`On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:`
```
On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>

>> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
>> calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the absolute
>> energy of anything, you can only measure the relative energy.
>
>
> * > Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of light. *
>

Yep, E= Mc^2. and the speed is measured in meters per second and light
moves at 299,792,458 metres per second. But a meter is defined as the
distance light travels in the time it takes an atom of caesium-133 to
vibrate  9,192,631,770 times (which is the definition of a second), and how
fast the cesium atom vibrates depends on Planck's Constant which has units
of meters, kilograms and seconds. So when you measure the speed of light
the value that you'll put in your lab notebook will be the same after the
split as the number you got before the split.

*> And mass can be measured relative to a standard unit both
> gravitationally and inertially. *
>

It's groundhog's day again, F=ma. If the inertial mass is half and the
gravitational mass is half then even though the force pulling an object to
the ground is half the object will accelerate the same way it did before
because Einstein tells us gravitational mass and inertial mass are always
exactly in sync.

> * > The real problem you're pointing to is that the MWI idea is that
> probability weighting of a branch rescales everything, KE, EM potential*
>

Problem? Why is that a problem? If it just rescaled one thing then that
would be a problem, but if it rescales everything then nothing observable
changes because for something to be meaningful you need contrast.

> Does it rescale the angular momentum of spin?
>

Sure, if mass is rescaled then obviously angular momentum would have to be
rescaled too.

> *> You might as well postulate it doing so because there's really no
> proven theory of probability scaling of physical values.*
>

Of course there isn't a way to prove it happened, that's what I've been
trying to to tell you! There would be absolutely no way to experimentally
detect the fact that the absolute energy level of something has changed,
you can only tell if the energy level has changed relative to something
else.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
34b

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit