- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
A couple of questions about what I believe are typos, but want to make
sure:
Yup, those are both typos...thanks
Dan wrote:
For example, we can make a spot on the moon travel faster than the speed
of light. Shoot a laser at the moon and change it's angle. One can
make the bright spot travel from one side of the moon to the other in a
microsecondwhich is many times faster than the speed of light.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
Dan wrote:
So if I had a rod that reached from here to the moon and was able to
manipulate it in the same
- Original Message -
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
I've read that book and some more technical articles on string theory.
While I couldn't claim to understand
The next step in our consideration is a more detailed look at spacelike
correlations and hidden variables. In order to do this, we will use
measurements at three angles in the x-y plane (with the direction of travel
along the z axis. Using the transfer between Cartesian and polar
coordinates
A couple of questions about what I believe are typos, but want to make sure:
Dan Minette wrote:
We can check this at all three angles by setting both measuring devices in
the same direction. We could look at one million pairs at 0 deg, one
million pairs at 37 deg, and one million pairs at 74 deg.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l
Dan said:
I glanced at that book and saw a couple of references to how string theory
should get rid of infinities. I saw nothing that indicated that he said
that quantum indeterminacy would go away. Getting rid of infinities is
quite plausible, I think. I'm still working on showing how
- Original Message -
From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On 21/03/2005, at 3:23 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In reletivistic
On 21/03/2005, at 3:23 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In reletivistic quantum mechanics, this is stated as Spacelike
operators
must commute. So, going back to our example of two spin 1/2
particles in
a spin zero state, if we have call the operator for measuring
* Ray Ludenia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hardly seems likely. Dan is from the famous shut up and calculate
school after all.
Huh? Could've fooled me.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In reletivistic quantum mechanics, this is stated as Spacelike operators
must commute. So, going back to our example of two spin 1/2 particles in
a spin zero state, if we have call the operator for measuring the spin of
particle 1: A and the operator
The next step I want to consider is the work from the mid thirties to about
the mid 60s. During this time, there were two developments that were
important to our discussion of the foundation of QM. The first was the
development of quantum field theory, or reletivistic quantum mechanics.
The
Since there didn't seem to be objections to the last bit of formalism, let
me take the next step. I would like to consider a system of two spin 1/2
particles produced from a spin 0 state. As an aside, actual experiments
that have been conducted are a bit more complicated than this idealized
On 13/03/2005, at 9:57 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The best place to start, I think, is spin. My old foundations of QM
teacher said that spin was probably the most QMish of all the aspects
of
QM.
So, lets consider a spin 1/2 particle: the electron. Spin is intrinsic
angular momentum. It cannot be
- Original Message -
From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
which is now much clearer to me than before. Sin(x)^2 and cos(x)^2
refer to probability amplitudes iirc, though why
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
[those are some good refs, Dan -- I need some time to digest
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
[those are some good refs, Dan -- I need some time to digest them
though. ;) ]
This is getting close to the time where the introduction of a bit of
formalism might be helpful. I think I can do it without going too deep
into the math.
That's
On 08/03/2005, at 8:23 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote in a fascinating
exchange with Dan:
Or the suggestion that detecting things a given way once will set
pointers such that those things will more naturally tend that way in
the future.
Seems that is just a more radical expression of the Practice
My understanding is that physicists who talk about you as the observer
who causes a collapse of a wave function, who say that
... observing an experiment is what changes its outcome ...
are being solipsistic, since none can prove that there is anything
outside of oneself. They try to speak
On Mar 5, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The important thing to take away from this quote is the size of the
BEC,
several millimeters. That is definitely macroscopic, it's a size that
you see on a grade student's ruler.
That is compelling, and not something I'd been aware of earlier.
I've
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
A quick reply with a question.
Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing that
goes away
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing that
goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's
location
and motion simultaneously,
Can you point out where you got this impression?
_The Elegant Universe_, Brian
From the July 2005 issue of The Journal of Theoretical:
...Scientists and grammarians have traced the continuing devolution of
proper spelling to the very walls of education.
''Apparently,'' Said a spokeswoman for the study, ''Every child who
misspells a word has a quantum effect
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing
that
goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's
location
and motion simultaneously,
Can you point out where you got this impression?
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing
Dan Minette wrote:
...
Looking at the web, experiments are now ongoing to have superpositions of
macroscopic currents, using a Josephine junction. It is always possible
that QM will break down at this point, and that there is exciting new
physics somewhere around mesoscopic physics. I would rate
At 04:11 PM Sunday 3/6/2005, maru wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
...
Looking at the web, experiments are now ongoing to have superpositions of
macroscopic currents, using a Josephine junction. It is always possible
that QM will break down at this point, and that there is exciting new
physics somewhere
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
Also, its
worth noting, that there have been experimental confirmation of
macroscopic
quantum states
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
But, you miss why QM is defended as it is. The
reaction
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM
(not
just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since
QM
is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false.
Almost as though it's a religion.
So what about
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
But, you miss why QM is defended as it is. The
reaction is as though you said but evolution is just a theory. What
would be helpful in thinking about this is asking why Feynman's
response
was to say shut up and calculate instead of pursuing the
On Mar 4, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM
(not
just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since
QM
is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false.
Almost as
FYI
Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23, 2004)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html
A team of physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive
quantum world. If, as quantum
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote:
FYI
Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23,
2004)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html
I saw the same idea floated a couple months back on another list. My
reaction then is what it is now: What a load
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote:
FYI
Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's
partially
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: brin:quantum darwin?
Did I imagine the _Nature_ reference (Dec 2004) right at the top of the
post and collaspe the wave function?
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe.
has caused the oven, the heat, *and* the pan to all come
into existence. Until I and my kind saw these things, they simply
weren't there at all. That's the quantum Darwin principle, and it is
by far the most ridiculous conclusion the gingerbread man can reach.
The objections I have to quantum
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are scientific proofs acceptable to you?
Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying
principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room.
What wiggle room? Do you realize what you are saying?
Yes, I do. I am saying that QM
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, I wrote:
In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the
results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a
separate
reality but the interface between that separate reality and our
minds, a
lot of things fall into place rather
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: quantum darwin?
Sometimes I feel like Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope
-- there's a vast outcry from a throng
45 matches
Mail list logo
