Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:39:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
>> be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was 
>> stuck 
>> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>>
>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the 
>> cat 
>> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say 
>> the 
>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with 
> the 
> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up 
> with 
> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>
>
> Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot 
> be 
> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
> nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
> that violate your Aristotelean logic?
>
> Brent
>

 What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is 
 either decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? 
 AG 


 Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed 
 assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by 
 interaction with the environment.  The interactions that produce 
 decoherence all proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not 
 instantaneous.  So the atom and the cat are no different...except the time 
 for which one can keep them isolated from the environment.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That 
>>> would put this issue to bed. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
>>> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
>>> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
>>> half-life.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
>> nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 
>>
>>
>> But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus.  It's an interaction of 
>> the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever tunnels 
>> out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the probability of 
>> tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a 
>> low probability of interaction.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in 
> isolation from the universe. AG 
>

And each particle constituent of the nucleus becomes entangled with the 
environment when it's created. I am open to criticisms, but I see this as 
the solution to the superposition problem. Nothing is isolated. It's just 
an unrealistic idealization which leads to paradoxes. AG

-- 
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/58aaad44-0eb7-4b6a-aab7-e133757b6c36%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BH question

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:54:33 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 8:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 4:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 


 On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


 On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for the most part. If you try to 
 accelerate so you hover just above it the time dilation and that you 
 are in 
 an extreme Rindler wedge will mean you are subjected to a torrent of 
 radiation. In principle a probe could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2 and 
 hover 
 a Planck unit distance above the horizon. You would be at the 
 stretched 
 horizon. This would be almost a sort of singular event. On the other 
 hand 
 if you fall on an inertial frame inwards there is nothing unusual at 
 the 
 horizon.

 LC

>>>
>>> Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow as an observer 
>>> approaches the event horizon; then the clock stops when crossing, or on 
>>> the 
>>> event horizon; and after crossing the clock resumes its forward rate? 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down at all.   Whenever 
>>> you see the word "clock" in a discussion of relativity it refers to an 
>>> *ideal 
>>> clock*.  It runs perfectly and never speeds up or slows down.  It's 
>>> called *relativity* theory because observers *moving relative* to 
>>> the clock *measure it* to run slower or faster than their (ideal) 
>>> clock.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock seems to be 
>> running "normally", but for some stationary observer, say above the 
>> event 
>> horizon, the infalling clock appears to running progressively slower as 
>> it 
>> falls below the EH, even if it can't be observed or measured. According 
>> to 
>> GR, is there any depth below the event horizon where the infalling clock 
>> theoretically stops? 
>>
>>
>> I just explained that *clocks never slow* in relativity examples.  
>> So now you ask if there's a place they stop??
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the infalling clock is 
> measured as running slower than a stationary clock above the EH. As the 
> infalling clock goes deeper into the BH, won't its theoretical rate 
> continue to decrease as compared to the reference clock above the EH? How 
> slow can it get? AG 
>
>
> It *appears* (if the observer at infinity could see the extreme red 
> shift) to *asymptotically approach stopped *as it approaches the 
> event horizon.  This is because the photons take longer and longer to 
> climb 
> out because they have to traverse more and more spacetime.
>
> Brent
>

 I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above the EH, and 
 other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock seem to run progressively 
 slower from the POV of the other clock, as it falls lower and lower? AG 

 I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.

 Brent

>>>
>>> As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever appear to 
>>> STOP? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon.  It appears 
>>> to stop as it approaches the event horizon.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I know it can't be observed as it falls through the EH. That's why I 
>> referred to clock "readings" after falling through as "theoretical". 
>>
>>
>> Well it doesn't make much sense to call observations theoretical when 
>> it's the theory that says they can't be observed.
>>
>> On the other hand, LC says falling through the EH is a non-event, as if 
>> the infalling clock behaves as we expect based on a clock entering a region 
>> of strong gravitational field. But let's say the clock appears to stop as 
>> it approaches the EH, which is what I thought. How do you reconcile this 
>> prediction, which is certainly weird? AG
>>
>>
>> Reconcile it with what?  It's a consequence of the metric which is 
>> derived from 

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
> be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was 
> stuck 
> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>
> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the 
> cat 
> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say 
> the 
> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>
> Brent
>

 You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
 paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
 demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
 prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
 Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 


 Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
 interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot 
 be 
 in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
 nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
 superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
 that violate your Aristotelean logic?

 Brent

>>>
>>> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
>>> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed 
>>> assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by 
>>> interaction with the environment.  The interactions that produce 
>>> decoherence all proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not 
>>> instantaneous.  So the atom and the cat are no different...except the time 
>>> for which one can keep them isolated from the environment.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That 
>> would put this issue to bed. AG 
>>
>>
>> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
>> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
>> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
>> half-life.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
> nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 
>
>
> But decoherence doesn't occur *at *the nucleus.  It's an interaction of 
> the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever tunnels 
> out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the probability of 
> tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean by "isolated", a 
> low probability of interaction.
>
> Brent
>

Doesn't decoherence occur when the nucleus forms? It can't form in 
isolation from the universe. AG 

-- 
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/dded6ad5-b7fe-44e4-ac82-d232ad3d6859%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 8:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you
have that a cat can't be dead and alive at the same
time.  It's as though your physics was stuck in the
time of Aristotle and words were magic so that
"Alive implies not-dead." was a law of physics
instead of an axiom of logic.

In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite
aside from quantum mechanics there would be no way
to identify the moment of death of the cat to less
than a several seconds. It would be simply
meaningless to say the cat was alive at 0913:20 and
dead at 0913:21.

Brent


You can imagine a different experiment, without cats,
with the same paradoxical result. The point of
Schroedinger's thought experiment was to demonstate tHE
title of this thread; that there's something wrong with
the prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your
view I am hung up with Aristotle? In my view, you're
seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG


Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the
prevailing 2019 interpretation, except in your mind
because you assume that a cat cannot be in a
superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a
nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can
be in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a
nanosecond.  Why doesn't that violate your Aristotelean
logic?

Brent


What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive
atom is either decayed OR undecayed with probabilities
calculated by Born's Rule? AG


Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or
undecayed assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed
has decohered by interaction with the environment.  The
interactions that produce decoherence all proceed at less
than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous.  So the
atom and the cat are no different...except the time for which
one can keep them isolated from the environment.

Brent


Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature.
That would put this issue to bed. AG


Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at
the speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is
relatively isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable
effect on its half-life.

Brent


But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG


But decoherence doesn't occur */at/ *the nucleus.  It's an interaction 
of the nucleus with the environment.  The alpha particle or whatever 
tunnels out in order to interact with the Geiger counter.  But the 
probability of tunneling is very low per unit time. That's what I mean 
by "isolated", a low probability of interaction.


Brent

--
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/47ef6d53-08e0-19d8-f8bb-000f22bb9cc7%40verizon.net.

Re: BH question

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 8:43 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 4:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent
wrote:


On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7,
Brent wrote:



On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM
UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM
UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Crossing the horizon is a nonevent
for the most part. If you try to
accelerate so you hover just above
it the time dilation and that you
are in an extreme Rindler wedge will
mean you are subjected to a torrent
of radiation. In principle a probe
could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2 and
hover a Planck unit distance above
the horizon. You would be at the
stretched horizon. This would be
almost a sort of singular event. On
the other hand if you fall on an
inertial frame inwards there is
nothing unusual at the horizon.

LC


Do you mean that clock rates continue to
slow as an observer approaches the event
horizon; then the clock stops when
crossing, or on the event horizon; and
after crossing the clock resumes its
forward rate? AG


He means the infalling clock doesn't slow
down at all.   Whenever you see the word
"clock" in a discussion of relativity it
refers to an /*ideal clock*/. It runs
perfectly and never speeds up or slows
down.  It's called /*relativity*/ theory
because observers /*moving relative*/ to
the clock /*measure it*/ to run slower or
faster than their (ideal) clock.

Brent


I see. So if for the infalling observer, his
clock seems to be running "normally", but for
some stationary observer, say above the event
horizon, the infalling clock appears to
running progressively slower as it falls
below the EH, even if it can't be observed or
measured. According to GR, is there any depth
below the event horizon where the infalling
clock theoretically stops?


I just explained that */clocks never slow/* in
relativity examples.  So now you ask if
there's a place they stop??

Brent


I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the
infalling clock is measured as running slower than
a stationary clock above the EH. As the infalling
clock goes deeper into the BH, won't its
theoretical rate continue to decrease as compared
to the reference clock above the EH? How slow can
it get? AG


It /*appears*/ (if the observer at infinity could
see the extreme red shift) to /*asymptotically
approach stopped */as it approaches the event
horizon.  This is because the photons take longer
and longer to climb out because they have to
traverse more and more spacetime.

Brent


I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance
above the EH, and other infalling. Doesn't the
infalling clock seem to run progressively slower from
the POV of the other clock, as it falls lower and
lower? AG


I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.

Brent


As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock
ever appear to STOP? AG


It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon. 
It appears to stop as it 

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
 be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck 
 in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
 not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.

 In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
 mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
 to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
 cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.

 Brent

>>>
>>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
>>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
>>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
>>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
>>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
>>> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be 
>>> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
>>> nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
>>> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
>>> that violate your Aristotelean logic?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
>> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 
>>
>>
>> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed assumes 
>> the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by interaction 
>> with the environment.  The interactions that produce decoherence all 
>> proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous.  So 
>> the atom and the cat are no different...except the time for which one can 
>> keep them isolated from the environment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That 
> would put this issue to bed. AG 
>
>
> Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
> speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
> isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
> half-life.
>
> Brent
>

But once decoherence occurs, it's never reversed. It's permanent. So 
nothing can be isolated, not even the atomic nucleus. AG 

-- 
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/0e2a3411-561f-4cb9-9d11-e6a916a6377f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BH question

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for the most part. If you try to 
>>> accelerate so you hover just above it the time dilation and that you 
>>> are in 
>>> an extreme Rindler wedge will mean you are subjected to a torrent of 
>>> radiation. In principle a probe could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2 and 
>>> hover 
>>> a Planck unit distance above the horizon. You would be at the stretched 
>>> horizon. This would be almost a sort of singular event. On the other 
>>> hand 
>>> if you fall on an inertial frame inwards there is nothing unusual at 
>>> the 
>>> horizon.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow as an observer 
>> approaches the event horizon; then the clock stops when crossing, or on 
>> the 
>> event horizon; and after crossing the clock resumes its forward rate? AG 
>>
>>
>> He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down at all.   Whenever you 
>> see the word "clock" in a discussion of relativity it refers to an 
>> *ideal 
>> clock*.  It runs perfectly and never speeds up or slows down.  It's 
>> called *relativity* theory because observers *moving relative* to 
>> the clock *measure it* to run slower or faster than their (ideal) 
>> clock.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock seems to be running 
> "normally", but for some stationary observer, say above the event 
> horizon, 
> the infalling clock appears to running progressively slower as it falls 
> below the EH, even if it can't be observed or measured. According to GR, 
> is 
> there any depth below the event horizon where the infalling clock 
> theoretically stops? 
>
>
> I just explained that *clocks never slow* in relativity examples.  So 
> now you ask if there's a place they stop??
>
> Brent
>

 I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the infalling clock is 
 measured as running slower than a stationary clock above the EH. As the 
 infalling clock goes deeper into the BH, won't its theoretical rate 
 continue to decrease as compared to the reference clock above the EH? How 
 slow can it get? AG 


 It *appears* (if the observer at infinity could see the extreme red 
 shift) to *asymptotically approach stopped *as it approaches the event 
 horizon.  This is because the photons take longer and longer to climb out 
 because they have to traverse more and more spacetime.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above the EH, and 
>>> other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock seem to run progressively 
>>> slower from the POV of the other clock, as it falls lower and lower? AG 
>>>
>>> I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever appear to 
>> STOP? AG
>>
>>
>> It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon.  It appears to 
>> stop as it approaches the event horizon.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I know it can't be observed as it falls through the EH. That's why I 
> referred to clock "readings" after falling through as "theoretical". 
>
>
> Well it doesn't make much sense to call observations theoretical when it's 
> the theory that says they can't be observed.
>
> On the other hand, LC says falling through the EH is a non-event, as if 
> the infalling clock behaves as we expect based on a clock entering a region 
> of strong gravitational field. But let's say the clock appears to stop as 
> it approaches the EH, which is what I thought. How do you reconcile this 
> prediction, which is certainly weird? AG
>
>
> Reconcile it with what?  It's a consequence of the metric which is derived 
> from Einstein's equations.  It's not as if it's some unexplained 
> observation.  It's not an observation at all.  It's a theoretical 
> prediction.
>
> Brent
>

You don't see a problem with a theory that predicts a clock which stops as 
seen by an outside observer, when the observer using the clock, 

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 8:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have
that a cat can't be dead and alive at the same time. 
It's as though your physics was stuck in the time of
Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies
not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of
logic.

In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside
from quantum mechanics there would be no way to identify
the moment of death of the cat to less than a several
seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the cat
was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.

Brent


You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with
the same paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's
thought experiment was to demonstate tHE title of this
thread; that there's something wrong with the prevailing
interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up
with Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum
nonsense. AG


Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the
prevailing 2019 interpretation, except in your mind because
you assume that a cat cannot be in a superposition of
alive/dead even for a fraction of a
nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in
a superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond. 
Why doesn't that violate your Aristotelean logic?

Brent


What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is
either decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by
Born's Rule? AG


Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed
assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered
by interaction with the environment.  The interactions that
produce decoherence all proceed at less than the speed of light,
so it is not instantaneous.  So the atom and the cat are no
different...except the time for which one can keep them isolated
from the environment.

Brent


Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That 
would put this issue to bed. AG


Except that isolation admits of degrees, and interactions, even at the 
speed of light, are not instantaneous.  The atomic nucleus is relatively 
isolated.  That's why the environment has no measurable effect on its 
half-life.


Brent

--
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/5e12425d-127e-5c60-852c-a9c6d24089a9%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:06:44 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
 be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck 
 in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
 not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.

 In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
 mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
 to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
 cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.

 Brent

>>>
>>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
>>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
>>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
>>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
>>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
>>> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be 
>>> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
>>> nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
>>> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
>>> that violate your Aristotelean logic?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
>> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 
>>
>>
>> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed assumes 
>> the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by interaction 
>> with the environment.  The interactions that produce decoherence all 
>> proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous.  So 
>> the atom and the cat are no different...except the time for which one can 
>> keep them isolated from the environment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That 
> would put this issue to bed. AG 
>

Yes, I think that's right. If you imagined a particle being created, 
wouldn't it fail to be isolated at the moment of its creation? AG 

-- 
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/2368c037-ac77-4205-98bf-3b5e9ba5bf68%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't be 
>>> dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck in 
>>> the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
>>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>>>
>>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
>>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
>>> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
>>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>>
>>
>> Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
>> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be 
>> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
>> nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
>> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
>> that violate your Aristotelean logic?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 
>
>
> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed assumes 
> the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by interaction 
> with the environment.  The interactions that produce decoherence all 
> proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous.  So 
> the atom and the cat are no different...except the time for which one can 
> keep them isolated from the environment.
>
> Brent
>

Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That would 
put this issue to bed. AG 

-- 
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/8f787705-1ff3-427d-a6f1-085b9baa3e5e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a
cat can't be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though
your physics was stuck in the time of Aristotle and words
were magic so that "Alive implies not-dead." was a law of
physics instead of an axiom of logic.

In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from
quantum mechanics there would be no way to identify the
moment of death of the cat to less than a several seconds. 
It would be simply meaningless to say the cat was alive at
0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.

Brent


You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the
same paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought
experiment was to demonstate tHE title of this thread; that
there's something wrong with the prevailing interpretation of
superposition. In your view I am hung up with Aristotle? In my
view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG


Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing
2019 interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a
cat cannot be in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction
of a nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in
a superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why
doesn't that violate your Aristotelean logic?

Brent


What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is 
either decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's 
Rule? AG


Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed 
assumes the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by 
interaction with the environment.  The interactions that produce 
decoherence all proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not 
instantaneous.  So the atom and the cat are no different...except the 
time for which one can keep them isolated from the environment.


Brent

--
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/cf1affa6-42a9-4ae8-5502-04a417652b1e%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:48:15 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:42 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>
>> What about sending cats?
>>
>>
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is 
>> hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive 
>> or 
>> dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my 
>> explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a 
>> superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a 
>> superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra. 
>> The 
>> quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which is 
>> impossible for most macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” 
>> have 
>> been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a 
>> quantum macroscopic effect.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat 
>> is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit 
>> spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made 
>> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very 
> very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to 
> make, 
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
> finite duration? AG 
>
>
> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
> be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was 
> stuck 
> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>
> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the 
> cat 
> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say 
> the 
> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>
> Brent
>

 You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
 paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
 demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
 prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
 Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 

>>>
>>> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's 
>>> thought experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so 
>>> what he thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the 
>> context of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously 
>> decayed and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger? 
>> AG 
>>
>
> Decoherence is rapid. Schrodinger did not know about this. But the SWE 
> predicts momentary superpositions -- at least until the environment 
> enforces the preferred basis.
>
> Bruce 
>
7:39 PM (1 hour ago)

What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 


-- 
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/e273b33f-af8a-44c9-b2e5-db4b2eb22316%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:42 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>
> What about sending cats?
>
>
> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is
> hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or
> dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my
> explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a
> superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a
> superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The
> quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which is
> impossible for most macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” 
> have
> been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a
> quantum macroscopic effect.
>
>
> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat
> is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit
> spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made
> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>
> Brent
>

 I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very
 very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
 since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
 finite duration? AG


 There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't
 be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck
 in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies
 not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.

 In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum
 mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat
 to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the
 cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.

 Brent

>>>
>>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same
>>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to
>>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the
>>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with
>>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG
>>>
>>
>> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's
>> thought experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so
>> what he thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the
> context of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously
> decayed and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger?
> AG
>

Decoherence is rapid. Schrodinger did not know about this. But the SWE
predicts momentary superpositions -- at least until the environment
enforces the preferred basis.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLSOA3B2_hY4deFSGNx%2Bh4aHFaXE0mNtN4hq_4T89v%2BYdA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:22 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

 What about sending cats?


 You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
 more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
 state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
 Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition 
 state 
 makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
 you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
 exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
 macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
 superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
 effect.


 Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
 extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit 
 spacing 
 must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
 by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
>>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
>>> finite duration? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
>>> be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck 
>>> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
>>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>>>
>>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
>>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
>>> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
>>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>>
>
> We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's thought 
> experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so what he 
> thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.
>
> Bruce
>

Fair enough. So what is the "prevailing view" now? Isn't it (in the context 
of Brent's last post) that a radioactive atom can be simultaneously decayed 
and undecayed? How is this different from the days of Schroedinger? AG 

-- 
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/e869a71c-1df4-4f8a-9fcf-85f7c14d28a6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't be 
>> dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck in 
>> the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>>
>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
>> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 
>
>
> Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be 
> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
> nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
> that violate your Aristotelean logic?
>
> Brent
>

What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either 
decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG 

-- 
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/94d1bb85-b4d3-4cf4-abab-dea19d58f7c4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:35 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 3:23 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've always been a propensitist [ 
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/#ProInt ].
>>
>>
>> Fine.  But my point is that to connect beliefs, predictions, mathematical 
>> theory, observations,...you need to be able to transfer one meaning of 
>> probability to another.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I really don't see why.
>
> (When the weatherman says there's a 17% probability of rain tomorrow, I 
> don't translate - nor do I think many viewers out there translate - 
> anything at all!)
>
>
> Of course you can ignore anything you hear.  But if you're going to make 
> use of the information you will translate into something related to a 
> decision, i.e. what's your expect loss due to getting we tomorrow?  Should 
> you cancel the department picnic?
>
> Brent
>

Maybe some people do.

I just translate it:

   A rain prediction program was run and it output this: 17%.

And that's all I know.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/491fba49-0f09-4f89-80e5-e6f8f7d290d9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> Wouldn't a small piece of a neutron star quickly explode via beta decay?
>
> Brent
>

I worked this out using the old liquid drop model. A baseball sized neutron 
sphere would have a surface gravity of around 10^{14}m/s^2, as I recall, 
which is enough to drag weak decay positron products back.

LC
 

>
> On 11/7/2019 4:24 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I would say if this is something exotic it may be a piece of neutron star. 
> Neutron stars are largely a neutron liquid of sorts. When they collide this 
> splash may hurl pieces of neutron liquid the size of a baseball on up. This 
> baseball sized piece of neutron liquid would have the mass of our moon. 
> These objects may be more common that we might suppose. 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian objects 
>> astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely coincidence, there 
>> is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15 earth masses orbiting the sun 
>> between 300 and 1000 times as distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but 
>> other than this indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to 
>> find the slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's 
>> so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet at all 
>> but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist, and says we 
>> need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the optical sort.
>>
>> What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? 
>> 
>>
>> The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra short micro 
>> lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the same range in the 
>> distant Magellanic  Cloud (a dwarf galaxy) that they assume were 
>> caused by free floating planets not connected to any star, but perhaps 
>> it was caused by something even more exotic like a Primordial  Black Hole. 
>>
>> Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment 
>>  
>>
>> It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be GREAT if 
>> it turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot spacecraft to 
>> explore a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing "Goddard orbit" to 
>> boost its speed it could get there in less than a decade.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9bc48f1c-0d8c-4036-9893-9ff43a3fd135%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/e6b87ab6-d48f-4d8f-a786-c8189b5544e5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat
can't be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your
physics was stuck in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so
that "Alive implies not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an
axiom of logic.

In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from
quantum mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of
death of the cat to less than a several seconds.  It would be
simply meaningless to say the cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at
0913:21.

Brent


You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was 
to demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong 
with the prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am 
hung up with Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum 
nonsense. AG


Prevailing when?  1927?  There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 
interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot 
be in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a 
nano-second...because...WHY?   The radioactive atom can be in a 
superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond.  Why doesn't 
that violate your Aristotelean logic?


Brent

--
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/843f0b4b-7e86-5367-0ed2-e0ddfc2fde38%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>>
>>> What about sending cats?
>>>
>>>
>>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely
>>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead
>>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to
>>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state
>>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to
>>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be
>>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most
>>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with
>>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic
>>> effect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
>>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
>>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
>>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
>> finite duration? AG
>>
>>
>> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't be
>> dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck in
>> the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies
>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>>
>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum
>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat
>> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the
>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same
> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to
> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the
> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with
> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG
>

We have moved on somewhat in the 80-plus years since Schrodinger's thought
experiment. The "prevailing view" is now different from his, so what he
thought he had demonstrated is no longer particularly relevant.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLRmKXx763pyvG_fNcGbL8pq5kDK1ES1EYzJxmdiK2oLbg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:25:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>>
>> What about sending cats?
>>
>>
>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
>> effect.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
> finite duration? AG 
>
>
> There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't be 
> dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was stuck in 
> the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies 
> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.
>
> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat 
> to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to say the 
> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.
>
> Brent
>

You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same 
paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the 
prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with 
Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG 

-- 
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/f50e8104-8b7b-4ec8-87ba-c837bcc8e4fb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 4:35 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 3:23 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


I've always been a propensitist [
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/#ProInt
 ].


Fine.  But my point is that to connect beliefs, predictions,
mathematical theory, observations,...you need to be able to
transfer one meaning of probability to another.

Brent


I really don't see why.

(When the weatherman says there's a 17% probability of rain tomorrow, 
I don't translate - nor do I think many viewers out there translate - 
anything at all!)


Of course you can ignore anything you hear.  But if you're going to make 
use of the information you will translate into something related to a 
decision, i.e. what's your expect loss due to getting we tomorrow?  
Should you cancel the department picnic?


Brent

--
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/1ccf89b3-9733-d569-dd4f-9b6d51e1%40verizon.net.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:27:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> A sample space implies statistics and a frequentist interpretation of 
>> probability.
>>
>>
> No.  
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space 
> 
>
>
> ...
>

The point is that* sample* space is defined in probability theory - 
whatever probability theory is applied to - or whether probability theory 
is studied as a subject in pure mathematics. 

@philipthrift

-- 
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/53a6c1e6-3f6b-4599-9287-f47b487e79c9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:27 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:07 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


 Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
 extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
 must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
 by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
>>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
>>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
>>> finite duration? AG
>>>
>>
>> Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the
>> absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Sure, but what about the claim that the macro world is really quantum;
> that is, the idea that the macro world is derivable from the quantum world?
> AG
>

What about it? Do you think it can't be done?

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLTb2E1A4kVVrndYXu5E-AXfKi4CJ0kpZ%3DfsBu45pqAjtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 3:23 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> I've always been a propensitist [ 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/#ProInt ].
>
>
> Fine.  But my point is that to connect beliefs, predictions, mathematical 
> theory, observations,...you need to be able to transfer one meaning of 
> probability to another.
>
> Brent
>

I really don't see why.

(When the weatherman says there's a 17% probability of rain tomorrow, I 
don't translate - nor do I think many viewers out there translate - 
anything at all!)

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/b6331c9a-597e-4167-9b42-eec47d90e4cd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Wouldn't a small piece of a neutron star quickly explode via beta decay?

Brent

On 11/7/2019 4:24 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
I would say if this is something exotic it may be a piece of neutron 
star. Neutron stars are largely a neutron liquid of sorts. When they 
collide this splash may hurl pieces of neutron liquid the size of a 
baseball on up. This baseball sized piece of neutron liquid would have 
the mass of our moon. These objects may be more common that we might 
suppose.


LC

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian
objects astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely
coincidence, there is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15
earth masses orbiting the sun between 300 and 1000 times as
distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but other than this
indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to find the
slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's
so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet
at all but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist,
and says we need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the
optical sort.

What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?


The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra
short micro lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the
same range in the distant Magellanic  Cloud (a dwarf galaxy)that
they assume were caused by free floating planets not connected to
any star, but perhaps it was caused by something even more exotic
like a Primordial Black Hole.

Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment



It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be
GREAT if it turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot
spacecraft to explore a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing
"Goddard orbit" to boost its speed it could get there in less than
a decade.

John K Clark

--
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/9bc48f1c-0d8c-4036-9893-9ff43a3fd135%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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/2bffedc8-ef2d-da30-ae27-f9a2b8196c79%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:07 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
>>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
>> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
>> finite duration? AG 
>>
>
> Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the 
> absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.
>
> Bruce
>

Sure, but what about the claim that the macro world is really quantum; that 
is, the idea that the macro world is derivable from the quantum world? AG 

-- 
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/2e06eb49-ec76-462b-b644-89e2f3f214d6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> A sample space implies statistics and a frequentist interpretation of 
> probability.
>
>
No.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

A probability space consists of three parts:

   1. 1. A *sample space* , 
{\displaystyle 
   \Omega }[image: \Omega], which is the set of all possible outcomes.
   2. 
   3. 2. A set of events 
    {\displaystyle 
   {\mathcal {F}}}[image: {\mathcal {F}}], where each event is a set 
   containing zero or more outcomes 
   .
   4. 
   5. 3. The assignment of probabilities 
    to the events; that is, a 
   function {\displaystyle P}[image: P] from events to probabilities.


@philipthrift

-- 
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/b387606e-ba61-4e81-b201-9ae24adccd76%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 4:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

What about sending cats?


You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is
hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its
alive or dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.
 See my explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of
an object in a superposition state makes it logically impossible
to remain in a superposition relatively to you. It uses only very
elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be exploited, require
perfect isolation, which is impossible for most macroscopic
object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with
superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum
macroscopic effect.


Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a
cat is extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit
and slit spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60
experiment was only made possible by the development of the
Tablot-Lau interferometer.

Brent


I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very 
very short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to 
make, since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some 
short but finite duration? AG


There is no paradox.  It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't 
be dead and alive at the same time.  It's as though your physics was 
stuck in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive 
implies not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic.


In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum 
mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the 
cat to less than a several seconds.  It would be simply meaningless to 
say the cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21.


Brent

--
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/ac4f97cd-08b8-c8aa-acae-aa29b0ff0fbb%40verizon.net.

Re: What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I would say if this is something exotic it may be a piece of neutron star. 
Neutron stars are largely a neutron liquid of sorts. When they collide this 
splash may hurl pieces of neutron liquid the size of a baseball on up. This 
baseball sized piece of neutron liquid would have the mass of our moon. 
These objects may be more common that we might suppose.

LC

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian objects 
> astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely coincidence, there 
> is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15 earth masses orbiting the sun 
> between 300 and 1000 times as distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but 
> other than this indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to 
> find the slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's 
> so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet at all 
> but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist, and says we 
> need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the optical sort.
>
> What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? 
> 
>
> The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra short micro 
> lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the same range in the 
> distant Magellanic  Cloud (a dwarf galaxy) that they assume were 
> caused by free floating planets not connected to any star, but perhaps it 
> was caused by something even more exotic like a Primordial  Black Hole.
>
> Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment 
>  
>
> It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be GREAT if it 
> turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot spacecraft to explore 
> a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing "Goddard orbit" to boost its 
> speed it could get there in less than a decade.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
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/9bc48f1c-0d8c-4036-9893-9ff43a3fd135%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> Fine.  But my point is that to connect beliefs, predictions, mathematical
> theory, observations,...you need to be able to transfer one meaning of
> probability to another.
>

I think the simplest solution is just to treat probability as an undefined
primitive, and interpret it as is appropriate for the given situation.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLRw3Z%2BG3E-457Yb%2BV1HFTfq_PkGu1Gy-1TvL7-vcS9Dvw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BH question

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 4:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent
wrote:



On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7,
Brent wrote:



On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7,
Brent wrote:



On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for
the most part. If you try to accelerate
so you hover just above it the time
dilation and that you are in an extreme
Rindler wedge will mean you are subjected
to a torrent of radiation. In principle a
probe could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2
and hover a Planck unit distance above
the horizon. You would be at the
stretched horizon. This would be almost a
sort of singular event. On the other hand
if you fall on an inertial frame inwards
there is nothing unusual at the horizon.

LC


Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow
as an observer approaches the event horizon;
then the clock stops when crossing, or on the
event horizon; and after crossing the clock
resumes its forward rate? AG


He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down
at all. Whenever you see the word "clock" in a
discussion of relativity it refers to an
/*ideal clock*/.  It runs perfectly and never
speeds up or slows down.  It's called
/*relativity*/ theory because observers
/*moving relative*/ to the clock /*measure
it*/ to run slower or faster than their
(ideal) clock.

Brent


I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock
seems to be running "normally", but for some
stationary observer, say above the event horizon,
the infalling clock appears to running
progressively slower as it falls below the EH,
even if it can't be observed or measured.
According to GR, is there any depth below the
event horizon where the infalling clock
theoretically stops?


I just explained that */clocks never slow/* in
relativity examples.  So now you ask if there's a
place they stop??

Brent


I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the
infalling clock is measured as running slower than a
stationary clock above the EH. As the infalling clock
goes deeper into the BH, won't its theoretical rate
continue to decrease as compared to the reference clock
above the EH? How slow can it get? AG


It /*appears*/ (if the observer at infinity could see
the extreme red shift) to /*asymptotically approach
stopped */as it approaches the event horizon.  This is
because the photons take longer and longer to climb out
because they have to traverse more and more spacetime.

Brent


I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above
the EH, and other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock
seem to run progressively slower from the POV of the other
clock, as it falls lower and lower? AG


I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.

Brent


As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever
appear to STOP? AG


It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon. It
appears to stop as it approaches the event horizon.

Brent


I know it can't be observed as it falls through the EH. That's why I 
referred to clock "readings" after falling through as "theoretical".


Well it doesn't make much sense to call observations theoretical when 
it's the theory that says they can't be observed.


On the other hand, LC says falling through the EH is a non-event, as 
if the infalling clock behaves as we expect based on a clock entering 
a region of strong gravitational field. But let's say the clock 
appears to stop as it approaches the EH, which is 

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:13 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible
>> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very
> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make,
> since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but
> finite duration? AG
>

Schrodinger did not know about decoherence. He was pointing to the
absurdity of taking the SWE as representing the full story about cats.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLRiKhtKT%2BieZsJhB9_c4v9%2B50M9DDu-wqYu-R7gcgssOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 3:23 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:43:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 2:32 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:53:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List  wrote:

On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press
in the wake of Sean Carroll's book) so many people
think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea (or the
best idea, according to the author).


Because it treats measurement as just another physical
interaction of quantum systems obeying the same
evolution equations as other interactions.


But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring
instruments, and everything else are basically quantum
mechanical) without adopting the "many worlds" philosophy.


ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of
the probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid
this by supposing that all probabilities are "actualized" in
the sense of becoming orthogonal subspaces.  There are some
problems with this too, but I see the attraction.

Brent


I studied probability theory - and statistics - through the 70s -
my thesis was in random fields [ def:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_field
 ] - and T've read
much on 'interpretations' of probability and statistics.

I'll just say that the vocabulary I see with 'probability' in the
way some are describing things like Many Worlds are just baffling
to me - probability theory-wise.

I know one can have a Bayesian probabilities sense of 'a
probability becomes 1.0' as in a prior to posterior probability
updating, but I don't think the Many Worlds people are doing
this. It's like a hybrid of QBI and MWI maybe.


I think of probability as an abstract quantity like "energy". 
It's a useful concept */because/* it has different interpretations
that can be translated from one context to another.  So the Born
rule gives a measure that satisfies the Kolmogorov axioms, and
it's useful because in an operational context it translates into
the frequentist meaning, and that's useful because it tells you
how to bet in a decision theory problem.

Brent




As long as QMists are clear about what type of 'probabilities' they 
are referring from one day (or paragraph) to the next, It's OK I 
guess. (I always think first: What is the *sample space [ 
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space ]? What are the *elements* 
of the sample space?)


A sample space implies statistics and a frequentist interpretation of 
probability.




I've always been a propensitist [ 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/#ProInt ].


Fine.  But my point is that to connect beliefs, predictions, 
mathematical theory, observations,...you need to be able to transfer one 
meaning of probability to another.


Brent

--
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/66bc4fe6-6854-7b58-a518-01628b8d2414%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
>> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
>> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
>> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
>> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the 
>> wf? TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
>> It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
>> of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
>> as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
>> technical factorisation reason already explained.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
>
> What about sending cats?
>
>
> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
> effect.
>
>
> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made possible 
> by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>
> Brent
>

I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, 
since the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but 
finite duration? AG 

-- 
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/bd809b30-38bf-403d-a673-0b4a46ea11cf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BH question

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for the most part. If you try to 
>> accelerate so you hover just above it the time dilation and that you are 
>> in 
>> an extreme Rindler wedge will mean you are subjected to a torrent of 
>> radiation. In principle a probe could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2 and 
>> hover 
>> a Planck unit distance above the horizon. You would be at the stretched 
>> horizon. This would be almost a sort of singular event. On the other 
>> hand 
>> if you fall on an inertial frame inwards there is nothing unusual at the 
>> horizon.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow as an observer 
> approaches the event horizon; then the clock stops when crossing, or on 
> the 
> event horizon; and after crossing the clock resumes its forward rate? AG 
>
>
> He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down at all.   Whenever you 
> see the word "clock" in a discussion of relativity it refers to an *ideal 
> clock*.  It runs perfectly and never speeds up or slows down.  It's 
> called *relativity* theory because observers *moving relative* to the 
> clock *measure it* to run slower or faster than their (ideal) clock.
>
> Brent
>

 I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock seems to be running 
 "normally", but for some stationary observer, say above the event horizon, 
 the infalling clock appears to running progressively slower as it falls 
 below the EH, even if it can't be observed or measured. According to GR, 
 is 
 there any depth below the event horizon where the infalling clock 
 theoretically stops? 


 I just explained that *clocks never slow* in relativity examples.  So 
 now you ask if there's a place they stop??

 Brent

>>>
>>> I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the infalling clock is 
>>> measured as running slower than a stationary clock above the EH. As the 
>>> infalling clock goes deeper into the BH, won't its theoretical rate 
>>> continue to decrease as compared to the reference clock above the EH? How 
>>> slow can it get? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> It *appears* (if the observer at infinity could see the extreme red 
>>> shift) to *asymptotically approach stopped *as it approaches the event 
>>> horizon.  This is because the photons take longer and longer to climb out 
>>> because they have to traverse more and more spacetime.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above the EH, and 
>> other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock seem to run progressively 
>> slower from the POV of the other clock, as it falls lower and lower? AG 
>>
>> I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever appear to 
> STOP? AG
>
>
> It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon.  It appears to 
> stop as it approaches the event horizon.
>
> Brent
>

I know it can't be observed as it falls through the EH. That's why I 
referred to clock "readings" after falling through as "theoretical". On the 
other hand, LC says falling through the EH is a non-event, as if the 
infalling clock behaves as we expect based on a clock entering a region of 
strong gravitational field. But let's say the clock appears to stop as it 
approaches the EH, which is what I thought. How do you reconcile this 
prediction, which is certainly weird? AG 

-- 
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/588f7501-ed61-4326-9379-cfa2b9c28dc7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:43:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 2:32 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:53:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of 
>>> Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific 
>>> idea (or the best idea, according to the author).
>>>
>>>
>>> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of 
>>> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>>>
>>
>> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments, 
>> and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the 
>> "many worlds" philosophy. 
>>
>>
>> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
>> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing 
>> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal 
>> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> I studied probability theory - and statistics - through the 70s - my 
> thesis was in random fields [ def: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_field ] - and T've read much on 
> 'interpretations' of probability and statistics.
>
> I'll just say that the vocabulary I see with 'probability' in the way some 
> are describing things like Many Worlds are just baffling to me - 
> probability theory-wise.
>
> I know one can have a Bayesian probabilities sense of 'a probability 
> becomes 1.0' as in a prior to posterior probability updating, but I don't 
> think the Many Worlds people are doing this. It's like a hybrid of QBI and 
> MWI maybe.
>
>
> I think of probability as an abstract quantity like "energy".  It's a 
> useful concept *because* it has different interpretations that can be 
> translated from one context to another.  So the Born rule gives a measure 
> that satisfies the Kolmogorov axioms, and it's useful because in an 
> operational context it translates into the frequentist meaning, and that's 
> useful because it tells you how to bet in a decision theory problem.  
>
> Brent
>



As long as QMists are clear about what type of 'probabilities' they are 
referring from one day (or paragraph) to the next, It's OK I guess. (I 
always think first: What is the *sample space [ *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space ]? What are the *elements* of 
the sample space?)

I've always been a propensitist [ 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/#ProInt ].

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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/612ece16-c6f1--925a-940ee045b46c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:13:46 PM UTC-6, Eva wrote:
>
> Galen Strawson say that consciousness is matter. I don't think so. When I 
> am unconscious my brain does not dissapear.




Strawson says (In the NYTimes article) that it's *the ordinary everyday 
picture of matter* that people have that is the problem.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/07c89298-c727-4962-b01f-233ff7cb7ce9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 2:32 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:53:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in
the wake of Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many
Worlds is a good scientific idea (or the best idea,
according to the author).


Because it treats measurement as just another physical
interaction of quantum systems obeying the same evolution
equations as other interactions.


But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring
instruments, and everything else are basically quantum
mechanical) without adopting the "many worlds" philosophy.


ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the
probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by
supposing that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of
becoming orthogonal subspaces.  There are some problems with this
too, but I see the attraction.

Brent


I studied probability theory - and statistics - through the 70s - my 
thesis was in random fields [ def: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_field ] - and T've read much on 
'interpretations' of probability and statistics.


I'll just say that the vocabulary I see with 'probability' in the way 
some are describing things like Many Worlds are just baffling to me - 
probability theory-wise.


I know one can have a Bayesian probabilities sense of 'a probability 
becomes 1.0' as in a prior to posterior probability updating, but I 
don't think the Many Worlds people are doing this. It's like a hybrid 
of QBI and MWI maybe.


I think of probability as an abstract quantity like "energy".  It's a 
useful concept */because/* it has different interpretations that can be 
translated from one context to another. So the Born rule gives a measure 
that satisfies the Kolmogorov axioms, and it's useful because in an 
operational context it translates into the frequentist meaning, and 
that's useful because it tells you how to bet in a decision theory problem.


Brent

--
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/0ea1bb62-ed3b-61e8-32b6-5f780cfd201b%40verizon.net.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:26 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2019 1:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>
>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:

 On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random
>> choice of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random
>> choice.
>>
>
> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
>

 It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness,
 but only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also
 be wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent
 nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.

> --
 Stathis Papaioannou

>>>
>>>
>>> That's what *Many Worlds* implies.
>>>
>>> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of
>>> Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific
>>> idea (or the best idea, according to the author).
>>>
>>>
>>> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of
>>> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>>>
>>
>> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments,
>> and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the
>> "many worlds" philosophy.
>>
>>
>> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the
>> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing
>> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal
>> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>>
>
> You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly
> dislike about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest
> about the number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly".
> Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes
> closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient
> fiction.
>
>
> Yeah, I like Omnes' dictum, "It's a probabilistic theory, so it predicts
> probabilities.  What more do you want?"
>
> But it still leaves that gap between the density matrix becoming diagonal
> FAPP and one subspace becoming actual FR (for real), not just FAPP.  If you
> take a purely epistemic view the gap is just in your belief changing.  But
> if you keep an ontological view the matrix is only diagonal in some
> preferred basis and it's not necessarily even approximately diagonal in
> some other basis.  It seems the other bases are an inconvenient fiction.
> :-)  It seems to come down to explaining that Zurek's quantum Darwinism
> necessarily picks out the basis in which our brains will form beliefs and
> they will agree on that belief as to what "really happened".
>

Maybe our brains see it in this way because "that is really what happened".
It is stochastic, but so what?  We are used to updating probabilities on
the basis of new evidence. Quantum Darwinism is a way of explaining that
the world itself determines what is real.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLT%2BNc%3DASyzHWBVm8%2B9JcVoFkPEA7d8KfEQgbApdNex-yQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:53:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of 
>> Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific 
>> idea (or the best idea, according to the author).
>>
>>
>> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of 
>> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>>
>
> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments, 
> and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the 
> "many worlds" philosophy. 
>
>
> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing 
> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal 
> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>
> Brent
>
>
> I studied probability theory - and statistics - through the 70s - my 
thesis was in random fields [ def: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_field ] - and T've read much on 
'interpretations' of probability and statistics.

I'll just say that the vocabulary I see with 'probability' in the way some 
are describing things like Many Worlds are just baffling to me - 
probability theory-wise.

I know one can have a Bayesian probabilities sense of 'a probability 
becomes 1.0' as in a prior to posterior probability updating, but I don't 
think the Many Worlds people are doing this. It's like a hybrid of QBI and 
MWI maybe.


@philipthrift

-- 
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/8e85884f-a817-464c-b741-b86e23d48f3b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 1:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp
wrote:

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett
 wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou
 wrote:


The universe as a whole is determined in every
detail, and random choice of the observer in
measuring a particle is not really a random choice.


If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.


It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true
randomness, but only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds
is wrong, then this may also be wrong. Randomness in
choice of measurement is required for the apparent
nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou




That's what *Many Worlds* implies.

The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in
the wake of Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many
Worlds is a good scientific idea (or the best idea,
according to the author).


Because it treats measurement as just another physical
interaction of quantum systems obeying the same evolution
equations as other interactions.


But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring
instruments, and everything else are basically quantum
mechanical) without adopting the "many worlds" philosophy.


ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the
probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by
supposing that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of
becoming orthogonal subspaces.  There are some problems with this
too, but I see the attraction.


You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly 
dislike about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are 
dishonest about the number of assumptions they have to make to get the 
SWE to "fly". Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born 
rule. Zurek comes closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other 
branches" as a convenient fiction.


Yeah, I like Omnes' dictum, "It's a probabilistic theory, so it predicts 
probabilities.  What more do you want?"


But it still leaves that gap between the density matrix becoming 
diagonal FAPP and one subspace becoming actual FR (for real), not just 
FAPP.  If you take a purely epistemic view the gap is just in your 
belief changing.  But if you keep an ontological view the matrix is only 
diagonal in some preferred basis and it's not necessarily even 
approximately diagonal in some other basis.  It seems the other bases 
are an inconvenient fiction. :-)  It seems to come down to explaining 
that Zurek's quantum Darwinism necessarily picks out the basis in which 
our brains will form beliefs and they will agree on that belief as to 
what "really happened".


Brent

If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our 
experience, then why have them there?


Bruce
--
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/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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/94656c35-7475-4180-1ab5-70c2b709f766%40verizon.net.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>


> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
 wrote:

>
> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random
> choice of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random
> choice.
>

 If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.

>>>
>>> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but
>>> only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be
>>> wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent
>>> nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.
>>>
 --
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's what *Many Worlds* implies.
>>
>> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of
>> Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific
>> idea (or the best idea, according to the author).
>>
>>
>> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of
>> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>>
>
> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments,
> and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the
> "many worlds" philosophy.
>
>
> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the
> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing
> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal
> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>

You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly dislike
about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest about the
number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly".
Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes
closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient
fiction. If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our
experience, then why have them there?

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett
 wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou
 wrote:


The universe as a whole is determined in every
detail, and random choice of the observer in
measuring a particle is not really a random choice.


If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.


It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true
randomness, but only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is
wrong, then this may also be wrong. Randomness in choice of
measurement is required for the apparent nonlocal effect when
considering entangled particles.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou




That's what *Many Worlds* implies.

The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the
wake of Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is
a good scientific idea (or the best idea, according to the author).


Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction
of quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other
interactions.


But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring 
instruments, and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) 
without adopting the "many worlds" philosophy.


ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing 
that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming 
orthogonal subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see 
the attraction.


Brent

Most contemporary physicists adopt such a view of the quantum origin 
of everything without taking Bohr's "primacy of the classical" 
seriously. So this is not a sound reason for adopting many worlds.






Bruce
--
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/CAFxXSLROp6cpM9rgiOguFiAYG2-h-%2B8YgDqopOu1eJPBb-4RkA%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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/4d79553d-5d3c-9935-5bcd-470c6491c35c%40verizon.net.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random
 choice of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random
 choice.

>>>
>>> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
>>>
>>
>> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but
>> only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be
>> wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent
>> nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.
>>
>>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
> That's what *Many Worlds* implies.
>
> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean
> Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea
> (or the best idea, according to the author).
>
>
> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of
> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>

But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments,
and everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the
"many worlds" philosophy. Most contemporary physicists adopt such a view of
the quantum origin of everything without taking Bohr's "primacy of the
classical" seriously. So this is not a sound reason for adopting many
worlds.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLROp6cpM9rgiOguFiAYG2-h-%2B8YgDqopOu1eJPBb-4RkA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?

[ronaldheld]

Not certain there is a planet 9, but my first choice would be a Superearth 
overall PBH.   Still need to rule it out.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:44:18 AM UTC-8, John Clark wrote:
>
> Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian objects 
> astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely coincidence, there 
> is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15 earth masses orbiting the sun 
> between 300 and 1000 times as distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but 
> other than this indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to 
> find the slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's 
> so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet at all 
> but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist, and says we 
> need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the optical sort.
>
> What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? 
> 
>
> The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra short micro 
> lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the same range in the 
> distant Magellanic  Cloud (a dwarf galaxy) that they assume were 
> caused by free floating planets not connected to any star, but perhaps it 
> was caused by something even more exotic like a Primordial  Black Hole.
>
> Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment 
>  
>
> It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be GREAT if it 
> turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot spacecraft to explore 
> a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing "Goddard orbit" to boost its 
> speed it could get there in less than a decade.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
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/0b935339-1e06-4a88-8abc-596fc9d302b4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:35:07 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
>>> wrote:
>>>

 The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random 
 choice of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random 
 choice.

>>>
>>> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
>>>
>>
>> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but 
>> only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be 
>> wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent 
>> nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.
>>
>>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
> That's what *Many Worlds* implies.
>
> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean 
> Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea 
> (or the best idea, according to the author).
>
>
> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of 
> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
>
> Brent
>



Really? That's why physicists and others are today (as it's reported in 
science news stories) adopting 

Many Worlds

as their perspective of reality?

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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/4347eab7-3fcd-4681-b359-af19016e3106%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 6:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:30:00 AM UTC-6, Eva wrote:

Philip Goff did not say nothing substantial here.

Anyway panpsychism is full of problems, most notably 'combination
problem' so it is not viable position.



Except (as Galen Strawson, Philip Goff, Hedda Morch argue) it has less 
"problem" than all alternatives presented far.


They also have less of an answer.  It's essentially just a label to 
paste over the problem.


Brent

--
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/3d9cb4d5-ef68-d501-32a0-464b9059a95d%40verizon.net.

Re: C60 Interference

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:




On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > wrote:

IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit
C60 experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't
think this is really a which-way experiment because the
interference disappears whether or not which-way is observed.
How does this effect the collapse issue? Usually, IIUC, when
interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So,
is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the
wf? TIA, AG


My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the
non-collapse frame. It works for particles, Molecules and even
macroscopic cats. The advantage of the non-collapse quantum
theory is that any interaction can be counted as a measurement.
So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the technical
factorisation reason already explained.

Bruno




They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.

What about sending cats?


You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is 
hugely more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its 
alive or dead state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See 
my explanation to Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object 
in a superposition state makes it logically impossible to remain in a 
superposition relatively to you. It uses only very elementary algebra. 
The quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect isolation, which 
is impossible for most macroscopic object. But some 
“macro-superposition” have been obtained with superconducting device. 
In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic effect.


Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit 
spacing must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made 
possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.


Brent

--
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/bff8eaf2-4897-cc14-cb14-27be9b710aac%40verizon.net.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:



On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett > wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:


The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and
random choice of the observer in measuring a particle is
not really a random choice.


If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.


It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true
randomness, but only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong,
then this may also be wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement
is required for the apparent nonlocal effect when considering
entangled particles.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou




That's what *Many Worlds* implies.

The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of 
Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good 
scientific idea (or the best idea, according to the author).


Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of 
quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.


Brent

--
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/1624bb97-3619-269a-82c9-69044b53c4fa%40verizon.net.

Re: BH question

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, Brent
wrote:



On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7,
Brent wrote:



On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for the
most part. If you try to accelerate so you
hover just above it the time dilation and that
you are in an extreme Rindler wedge will mean
you are subjected to a torrent of radiation.
In principle a probe could accelerate to
10^{53}m/s^2 and hover a Planck unit distance
above the horizon. You would be at the
stretched horizon. This would be almost a sort
of singular event. On the other hand if you
fall on an inertial frame inwards there is
nothing unusual at the horizon.

LC


Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow as
an observer approaches the event horizon; then the
clock stops when crossing, or on the event
horizon; and after crossing the clock resumes its
forward rate? AG


He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down at
all.   Whenever you see the word "clock" in a
discussion of relativity it refers to an /*ideal
clock*/.  It runs perfectly and never speeds up or
slows down.  It's called /*relativity*/ theory
because observers /*moving relative*/ to the clock
/*measure it*/ to run slower or faster than their
(ideal) clock.

Brent


I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock
seems to be running "normally", but for some stationary
observer, say above the event horizon, the infalling
clock appears to running progressively slower as it
falls below the EH, even if it can't be observed or
measured. According to GR, is there any depth below the
event horizon where the infalling clock theoretically
stops?


I just explained that */clocks never slow/* in
relativity examples.  So now you ask if there's a place
they stop??

Brent


I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the infalling
clock is measured as running slower than a stationary clock
above the EH. As the infalling clock goes deeper into the
BH, won't its theoretical rate continue to decrease as
compared to the reference clock above the EH? How slow can
it get? AG


It /*appears*/ (if the observer at infinity could see the
extreme red shift) to /*asymptotically approach stopped */as
it approaches the event horizon.  This is because the photons
take longer and longer to climb out because they have to
traverse more and more spacetime.

Brent


I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above the EH,
and other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock seem to run
progressively slower from the POV of the other clock, as it falls
lower and lower? AG


I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.

Brent


As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever appear 
to STOP? AG


It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon.  It appears 
to stop as it approaches the event horizon.


Brent

--
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/46dc6a94-67cf-fa11-9d27-c7f220f1c352%40verizon.net.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Eva]

Galen Strawson say that consciousness is matter. I don't think so. When I am 
unconscious my brain does not dissapear.

-- 
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/69a2cbdc-68a9-4562-9020-f0d5d09f464e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Nov 2019, at 11:30, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Philip Goff
> Philip Pullman
> moderator, Nigel Warburten
> 
> transcript of podcast
> 
> @ 
> https://lithub.com/philip-goff-and-philip-pullman-talk-materialism-panpsychism-and-philosophical-zombies/
> 
>
> 
> PG: You only get rich, human experience after millions of years of evolution. 
> So the basis constituent is consciousness but it doesn’t mean every 
> combinations of particles is conscious; it doesn’t meant the table is 
> conscious, for example.
> 
> NW: Well, it does mean it is conscious on some level, doesn’t it?
> 
> PG: The things that make it up are conscious but maybe the table as a whole 
> does not necessarily have its own experience. So, are you maybe sympathetic 
> to the view that something distinctively human is kind of fundamental to the 
> universe?
> 
> PP: Not to the universe; that couldn’t be possible if we believe the universe 
> jumped into being with the Big Bang 14 billion years ago, or whatever it was. 
> But yes, I do think there is something distinctive about human beings, which 
> is our ability to reflect on our own experience.

The recursion theorem of Kleene, as well as it first person interpretation by 
the machine, shows that the ability to reflect its own experience is common to 
all Gödel-Löbian-Solovay machines or entities. I recall that a Löbian machine 
is a Universal machine aware of its own universality (“aware” in the 
Theaetetus’ sense).





> If I believe that glass of water is conscious maybe it is, but it’s not doing 
> much reflecting. As far as we know. Maybe it’s in conversation with your 
> glass. But ah, yes, in the stories I’ve written, clearly human 
> self-consciousness, human awareness, came into being 30, 40 thousand years 
> ago, something like that, and it’s based of course, on the coming of 
> artistic, the remains of art. Cave paintings, the carvings on stones, that 
> sort of thing. That seems to be a time when people were becoming interested 
> in other things than where the next meal was. So yeah, I do think the sort of 
> consciousness we could be able to display now and we display every day, did 
> kind of emerge from something that was less conscious.
> 
> NW: That’s still a problem for a panscientist isn’t it?

Yes, that is a bit of a problem for anyone attaching consciousness to 3p 
descriptible things. It is Searle's error, again and again. This requires a non 
mechanist theory of mind.



> You have lots of little bits of conscious stuff and then you have this thing 
> that can reflect on what matter is and whether it’s conscious or not.
> 
> PG: Look, all these views have problems and there is, it’s early days, in my 
> view, of the science of consciousness. I suppose it seems to me that the 
> challenges facing a panpsychist research program look to be more tractable 
> than the problems facing, say, [an eliminative] materialist. The core of 
> [eliminative] materialism as I’ve already labored, is you have this huge, 
> explanatory gap between the purely quantitative objective properties,

Of course this does not exist. The physical reality is a first person plural 
construction, driven by the first person differentiation of the histories 
corresponding to the many computations (whose existence is purely arithmetical).
Computer science explains how quanta and qualia appears, and the explanation is 
testable thanks to the quanta which can be compared with the (human) 
observation.

Bruno



> and the qualitative subjective, and I don’t think you’ve made any–– whereas 
> the explanatory gap for the panpsychic is how did you get from very simple 
> forms of consciousness to very complex forms of consciousness?
> 
> PP: It just makes sense to me.
> 
> PG: You think it’s true?
> 
> PP: Yeah.
> 
> ——
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/d067fc13-4b61-42bb-b46a-c51479e39d3f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/FA3B1E32-B0EC-4530-935C-657481192D54%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:30:00 AM UTC-6, Eva wrote:
>
> Philip Goff did not say nothing substantial here. 
>
> Anyway panpsychism is full of problems, most notably 'combination problem' 
> so it is not viable position.
>


Except (as Galen Strawson, Philip Goff, Hedda Morch argue) it has less 
"problem" than all alternatives presented far.

(Galen Strawson) 

*Realistic Monism*
*Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism*
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf


*Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.*
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html


Philip Goff has an article in SA roday:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/galileos-big-mistake/


@philipthrift

-- 
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/d960d4b9-31db-4a77-8639-12605306b4d8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
>> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is really 
>> a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether or not 
>> which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? Usually, 
>> IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of the wf. So, 
>> is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of the wf? TIA, AG
> 
> My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. It 
> works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage of 
> the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted as a 
> measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the technical 
> factorisation reason already explained.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
> 
> What about sending cats?

You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely more 
complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead state will 
be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to Grayson why any 
(unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state makes it logically 
impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to you. It uses only very 
elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be exploited, require perfect 
isolation, which is impossible for most macroscopic object. But some 
“macro-superposition” have been obtained with superconducting device. In fact, 
superconductor is a quantum macroscopic effect.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> 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/08edded8-362f-4ae0-bca6-8716ea7736fd%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/7E2304DB-DFA9-4E65-BAC5-3117482D7075%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Nov 2019, at 09:21, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett > 
> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
> 
> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random choice of 
> the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random choice.
> 
> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
> 
> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but only 
> apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be wrong. 
> Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent nonlocal 
> effect when considering entangled particles.
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> 
> That's what Many Worlds implies.
> 
> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean 
> Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea 
> (or the best idea, according to the author).


For the same reason that it is simpler to believe in all (natural, or real) 
numbers, than in any particular number. The mechanist has no choice, and this 
explains both qualia and quanta (thanks to the Solovay separation of G* and G) 
without adding any ontological commitment other than in a universal machinery 
(needed to define what a computer is).

So the answer is conceptual simplicity, or Occam razor. Using the less 
assumptions as possible.



> 
> 
> Superdeterminism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism 
>  - though apparently is a 
> "One World" theory.

Yes, you get super determinism from the many-worlds less all worlds but ours. 
That is just an abandon or rationality. Something implicitly illustrated in the 
aforementioned comics.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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/d1b4821a-56d1-4b49-a1ba-ebea4a321ee7%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/F852EC83-838E-4A88-B14C-AEAFCF3C68AC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Nov 2019, at 02:50, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:27 PM Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 10:25, John Clark  > wrote:
> Superdeterminism in comics  
> 
> Isn’t that what Many Worlds says? The entangled particles are correlated 
> because they are in the same world.
> 
> That isn't an explanation of the correlation. That is just the fact of the 
> correlation. 
> The mysterious instantaneous interaction appears that way because of apparent 
> randomness due to the impossibility of the observer knowing which world he is 
> in.
> 
> That makes no sense.
> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random choice of 
> the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random choice.
> 
> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
> 
> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but only 
> apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be wrong. 
> Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent nonlocal 
> effect when considering entangled particles.
> 
> Super determinism works only in single world models. There can be no true or 
> apparent randomness in a super deterministic setting. So many-worlds, since 
> it encompasses apparent randomness in every branch, is ruled out.

In the WM mechanist self-duplication, there is no super-determinism, no true 
randomness, but there is still apparent randomness in the two branches.



> 
> Likewise, EPR correlations are observed in every branch of the wave function, 
> so ignorance as to which branch you are on can form no part of the 
> explanation of those correlations.

The question “which branches am I on” does not make sense. We are always on 
many branches at once.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAFxXSLTxoZ0Zba9Rh29DZKQAxst49k6a6EfsoHHJhskrA32ZgQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/FDB3E91C-6D57-4A9A-8824-0E7F7C32F7DB%40ulb.ac.be.

Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Eva]

Philip Goff did not say nothing substantial here. 

Anyway panpsychism is full of problems, most notably 'combination problem' so 
it is not viable position. 

-- 
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/d26da914-0328-4998-8e1f-2e664811d770%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random choice 
>>> of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random choice.
>>>
>>
>> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
>>
>
> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but 
> only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be 
> wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent 
> nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles.
>
>> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>


That's what *Many Worlds* implies.

The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean 
Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea 
(or the best idea, according to the author).


Superdeterminism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism - though 
apparently is a "One World" theory.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/d1b4821a-56d1-4b49-a1ba-ebea4a321ee7%40googlegroups.com.