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 measurethe 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 lightmoves at 299,792,458 metres per second. But a meter is defined as thedistance light travels in the time it takes an atom of caesium-133 tovibrate 9,192,631,770 times (which is the definition of a second),and how fast the cesium atom vibrates depends on Planck's Constantwhich has units of meters, kilograms and seconds. So when you measurethe speed of light the value that you'll put in your lab notebook willbe 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 thegravitational mass is half then even though the force pulling anobject to the ground is half the object will accelerate the same wayit did before because Einstein tells us gravitational mass andinertial 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 thenthat would be a problem, but if it rescales everything then nothingobservable changes because for something to be meaningful you needcontrast.

`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 haveto 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 beentrying to to tell you! There would be absolutely no way toexperimentally detect the fact that the absolute energy level ofsomething has changed, you can only tell if the energy level haschanged 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 GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sendan email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visithttps://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.