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

```
On 5/16/2022 4:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
```
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:31 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
```
/>>> 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),

/> Since the frequency of the hyperfine transition in caesium
depends on the energy difference of two levels in the atom, when
energy rescales, the frequency also rescales, and with it, the
definitions of the second and of the meter. The trouble with this
is that this amounts merely to a rescaling of the units, not a
rescaling of time or distance in themselves./

```
Time is what clocks measure, and clocks operate according to physical principles, and so does your brain, so if physical principles change to make the clock run a different speed your brain will run at a different speed too and thus you'll notice no difference
```

/> A change of units does not change the physics; dimensionless
constants, on which everything depends,/

```
There aren't a lot of dimensionless pure number fundamental physical constants, probably the most important is the fine structure constant, it's a pure number and determines, among other things, how fast the cesium atom and all atoms vibrate,  that's how it got its name, it determines the fine structure of the spectrum the light that atoms give off. The is approximately value of the fine structure constant is 1/137, the exact value is e^2/(4*π*eo*h*c) where e is the charge of an electron, eo is the electric constant, h is Planck's Constant divided by 2π, and c is the speed of light. So when you do an experiment to determine its value today after the split you will get a pure number very close to 1/137,  the same number you got yesterday before the split.
```
```
The question was whether it was observable if the energy were apportioned in the split.  The answer must make some assumption about what other values are not-apportioned.  One would be that all the dimensionless constants stay the same...which implies the change is unobservable. But that's not the same as saying energy is apportioned because it is preserved across the MW total.  Supposedly energy is singled out as apportioned because it's nominally conserved.  But it's conserved because Hamiltonians are time-translation invariant.  Measurement in a branch isn't evolved by a time-translation invariant Hamiltonian.  So there's no reason to think energy is conserved.  In fact if it is always conserved that would be contrary to MWI.
```
Brent

```
```
```
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
```lhw

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/CAJPayv0E9qYZ5c4ga7gujD3ofgVW-YV-_SeFweaUGCTYjv4UQg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0E9qYZ5c4ga7gujD3ofgVW-YV-_SeFweaUGCTYjv4UQg%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