On 5/16/2022 12:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
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.
It creates the problem that the change is unobservable and hence
meaningless by some standards. Energy is always the variable asked
about because people assume energy is conserved and this implies, to
them, that the multiple worlds only get a proportionate fraction of the
energy. But do they get a proportionate action of the momentum? the
angular momentum? the velocity of light? the number of people? What is
this splitting by probability weight that affects physical variables?
Why does it apportion some values and not others...a skeptic might say
it just apportions them however needed such that it's unobservable and
that's the definition of apportionment by probability.
But ironically, Sean Carroll, who is a proponent of MWI, says that
energy is*/not/* conserved in each branch of the MWI, only in the total,
and non-conservation should be observable in a branch. Energy is
conserved because the Hamiltonian is time-translation invariant in the
SE. But measurements, as seen in a single branch, are not
time-translation invariant; they're projections. So in a single branch
it would be contrary to MWI for energy to always be conserved. It's
only conserved in total, or also on average in a given finite sequence.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.11052.pdf
But the funny thing is, the way Carroll describes it, is that this a
non-conservation in a measure of spin state a|up>+b|dwn>, not because a
and b are less than one, but because they weight eigenstates of
different energy. So although reducing everything by a factor of 1/2 in
undetectable, we can observe the difference in energy between 0.9 spin
up and 0.9 spin dwn of just this one particle.
> Does it rescale the angular momentum of spin?
Sure, if mass is rescaled then obviously angular momentum would have
to be rescaled too.
But spin has an absolute unit, it's not mv^2/r .
/> 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'ta 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.
You're telling me it's so, but you're not telling me why and why
"energy"...which isn't even an invariant in relativity. You're just
saying that energy comes in arbitrary units so rescaling units can leave
everything the same. But units are arbitrary choices. For real change
in the physics there has to be some change in a dimensionless number,
e.g. the fine structure constant. Or, per Carroll, the relative energy
of two spin states.
Brent
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ROCKPOjEPeijExOLfL7MgT4zyd5WwY3NLT2cUrFtfAw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ROCKPOjEPeijExOLfL7MgT4zyd5WwY3NLT2cUrFtfAw%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38ad2c88-846a-ea54-4612-a56cbe8448f3%40gmail.com.
