On n Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 11:02 Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states. I didn't think I would
have to explain why I capitalised Bell, but perhaps it was a bit
too subtle. Google Bell and
At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't
say
that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
Yes it does.
Heisenberg
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states.
I didn't think I would have to explain why I capitalised Bell, but
perhaps
it was a bit too subtle. Google Bell and inequalities, and go from
there.
I disagree. Bell's Inequality
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information
about position and change in position that you can collect. It does not
rule out internal states.
Yes it does, it says that any time you measure a system it WILL be in an
At 03:21 PM 7/14/02 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
Eric Cordian wrote:
Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum
mechanics
works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive isotope will decay, if you
please.
You mean this
Eric Cordian wrote:
Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum mechanics
works just fine for predicting the results of experiments.
Oh yeah? So predict when this radioactive isotope will decay, if you please.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 07:43 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Tim,
Are you tacitly assuming some kind of communication between
observers
when you make the claim of a convergence? Adsent said communications,
could we show that the convergence would still obtain? Have you ever
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Tim May wrote:
No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded,
everything we know about science (evidence, archaeology,
measurements, ...) points to a _single_ past.
Sorry about this misdirection to the CP list. It was meant to go to
Time postulates:
No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded, everything
we know about science (evidence, archaeology, measurements, ...) points
to a _single_ past.
The laws of physics, including the laws of quantum mechanics, are
symmetric with respect to the arrow of
