Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. ? Bohm added a potential obeying a quite special equation, in addition to the SWE. Bohm gave a non collapse QM, but a quite different theory than QM. That potential has to act non locally and physically. Also. (of course by Bell theorem). In fact that move mirrors the adding of primitive matter and primitive physical laws to arithmetic. In this everything-list we are supposed to dislike adding equation, or axioms, to make things judged ugly disappear. Bruno Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this hasalready been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/26/2014 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. ? Bohm added a potential obeying a quite special equation, in addition to the SWE. It's not in addition. He just divided the SWE into an amplitude and phase part. The quantum potential term just comes from the solution of the amplitude part. http://www.nhcue.edu.tw/~jinnliu/proj/Device/BP.pdf Bohm gave a non collapse QM, but a quite different theory than QM. But it's non-collapse because he supposed that particles have some initial distribution and then follow the guiding field to definite events. That potential has to act non locally and physically. Also. (of course by Bell theorem). In fact that move mirrors the adding of primitive matter and primitive physical laws to arithmetic. In this everything-list we are supposed to dislike adding equation, or axioms, to make things judged ugly disappear. Hmmm. I didn't know we had a dogma? Brent Bruno Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
That proof, like any multiverse with no assumptions, includes the possibility that the earth was supported by a giant over a turtle in a sea of water and then vanished moments before Magallanes circumnavigated the globe. But it add nothing to the beauty of the greek myth. In fact it add nothing at all like any explanation based on nothingness 2014-06-25 2:44 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 [image: image] https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Fo... https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a math… View on medium.com https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Preview by Yahoo -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units as I have proposed). /Computational solution to quantum foundational problems// //Arkady Bolotin// //(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, v6))// // //This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem in quantum theory referred to as the measurement problem, actually has a computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of macroscopic objects from their microstates.// // //Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference// //Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)// //Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157// //Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]// // (or *arXiv:1403.7686v6 *[quant-ph] for this version)/ Brent On 6/24/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote: This item in further reading looks interesting too https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a (Not that I'm not busy here at work... ) On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 image https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Fo... https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a math… View on medium.com https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Preview by Yahoo -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 26 June 2014 04:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. There's no need to doubt it, it's mentioned in the paper so just read it and comment on it directly. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
We do not need a mathematical proof that before there was anything anywhere, there was nothing. According to my model of our Universe, everything in our Universe is made from an equal number of plus and minus tronnies. The only property of tronnies is their charge of plus or minus e. Tronnies have no mass. The sum of all tronnies is zero (i.e. nothing). Tronnies get their charges from Coulomb grids that completely fill our Universe. Coulomb grids are comprised of plus and minus speed of light Coulomb waves that also add to zero. Coulomb force waves are the product of tronnies and tronnies are the product of Coulomb force waves, all of which add to zero, nothing. However, our current Universe was not made from nothing. It was made from the recycling of our predecessor Universe most of which was pulled by the gravity of a Monster Black which exploded in the Big Bang which created our Universe. I have guessed that our Universe is Universe 47 in a series of universes. I have also guessed that the mass of the universes in this series of universes doubles with each cycle and that the first universe was the size of our galaxy. In the very beginning before there was anything there must have been nothing, a complete vacuum, empty space. I don’t know how but somehow at least a portion of that empty space became occupied by tronnies or Coulomb force waves (either one), because Coulomb force waves are continually produced by tronnies and tronnies are point focuses of Coulomb force waves that extend out from the tronnies at the speed of light forever. Three tronnies make an electron or a positron. (There are an equal number of electrons and positrons in every universe, so they also add to zero.) Two tronnies make an entron. (The two tronnies of every entron and all entrons, taken as a group, also add to zero.) Photons are merely entrons traveling forward at the speed of light. Entrons provide all of the mass of universes other than that provided by electrons and positrons, which are produce and destroyed only in pairs. An electron and a neutrino entron and two positrons make a naked proton. The naked proton collects gamma ray entrons to make nuclei of hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms are fused in stars to make alpha particles and all of the atoms in the periodic table can be made from alpha particles, electrons and gamma ray entrons. Black Holes produce gravity by consuming portions of its galaxy and/or other galaxies and destroying protons to release their neutrino entrons which escape from the Black Holes to provide galactic gravity. Near the center of each universe, as the universe ages a Monster Black Hole will form which will ultimately consume substantially all of the Universe with its ever increasing gravity. Toward the end of the life of the universe galaxies from near the outer edges of the universe will be accelerated toward the Monster Black Hole at thousands of times the speed of light. The Monster Black Hole will explode in a Big Bang and the last remaining Black Holes will pass through the site of the Big Bang to produce the inflation of the successor universe. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:26 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units as I have proposed). /Computational solution to quantum foundational problems// //Arkady Bolotin// //(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, v6))// // //This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem in quantum theory referred to as the measurement problem, actually has a computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of macroscopic objects from their microstates.// // //Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference// //Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)// //Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157// //Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]// // (or *arXiv:1403.7686v6 *[quant-ph] for this version)/ I may have misinterpreted this paper (and god knows I don't have much time to look at them in depth) but the impression I got was that some computations are too hard for nature to perform in time and this time limit creates the Heisenberg cut. Is that a fair summary, or have I messed up again? That's what I took it to say. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units as I have proposed). *Computational solution to quantum foundational problems* *Arkady Bolotin* *(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, v6))* *This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem in quantum theory referred to as the measurement problem, actually has a computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of macroscopic objects from their microstates.* *Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference* *Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)* *Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157* *Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]* * (or arXiv:1403.7686v6 [quant-ph] for this version)* I may have misinterpreted this paper (and god knows I don't have much time to look at them in depth) but the impression I got was that some computations are too hard for nature to perform in time and this time limit creates the Heisenberg cut. Is that a fair summary, or have I messed up again? That's what I took it to say. Interesting. I would think (and I realise that what I think isn't exactly an infallible guide to what nature is likely to do) that whatever nature does computationally, we would experience the results at the relevant speed - so if in platonia or whevever it takes a trillion years to calcaulate one second of universe-time, we'd just experience the one second. I wouldn't expect there to be a sort of two speed system. (But then I drive an automatic... :-) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/25/2014 4:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units as I have proposed). /Computational solution to quantum foundational problems// //Arkady Bolotin// //(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, v6))// // //This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem in quantum theory referred to as the measurement problem, actually has a computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of macroscopic objects from their microstates.// // //Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference// //Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)// //Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157// //Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]// // (or *arXiv:1403.7686v6 *[quant-ph] for this version)/ I may have misinterpreted this paper (and god knows I don't have much time to look at them in depth) but the impression I got was that some computations are too hard for nature to perform in time and this time limit creates the Heisenberg cut. Is that a fair summary, or have I messed up again? That's what I took it to say. Interesting. I would think (and I realise that what I think isn't exactly an infallible guide to what nature is likely to do) that whatever nature does computationally, we would experience the results at the relevant speed - so if in platonia or whevever it takes a trillion years to calcaulate one second of universe-time, we'd just experience the one second. I wouldn't expect there to be a sort of two speed system. (But then I drive an automatic... :-) Yeah, it seems to assume a computational time which is a limited resource and is related to the physical time as measured by fields and particle motion. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Fo... Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a math… View on medium.com Preview by Yahoo -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
This item in further reading looks interesting too https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a (Not that I'm not busy here at work...[?] ) On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 [image: image] https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Fo... https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a math… View on medium.com https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 Preview by Yahoo -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
