Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-23 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:03:49 AM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Good point on the "Higgs" Boson. Especially when the discoverer said what 
> he said. The experiments at CERN, Fermi Lab, etc. were run with the 
> standard model in mind. They defined the "evidence" they expected a Higgs 
> boson to manifest in residue particles, and, when they found, amongst the 
> subatomic and atomic debris, a particle near the characteristics they 
> expected, they called it a "hit".  There is only indirect evidence. We 
> can't directly observe picometer objects moving at close to the speed of 
> light. We know few things, like the mass to charge ratio and approx kinetic 
> energy...  
> Cheers!
>

My area is physics, and have written on the connection between spacetime or 
gravitation with particle physics. Cosmin wanted to see the Higgs boson, 
and that is about it. It may be disappointing, but the particle only last 
about 10^{-25} seconds on a path 10^{-15}cm long. So we detect this field 
by the particles it decays into. Since it requires a lot of energy the 
machine is large, the detectors are large and it is a major undertaking. I 
don't have Higgs particles in my pocket.

Cosmin might be somewhat earnest in his intent here, or he might just be 
another up and coming hustler trying to get people to follow. If he is 
earnest then he has been hustled. The various attempts to really measure 
these things have always come up with white noise in the statistics. Where 
scientific claims are made it is usually because of the file drawer effect, 
which is data cherry picking. There is nothing here.

LC
 

>
>
> On 5/22/2019 11:20 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2019 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2019, at 20:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> The Higgs boson was produced very much "at will".  In fact a lot willing 
> went into it.
>
>
> You mean the Englert-Brout-Higgs boson?
>
> Englert did not want it. He was disappointed. He learned nothing. He said 
> it on TV when he got the prize.
>
> He was used to assume the Standard Model of the particles.
>
> He would have preferred something new. Like a refutation, a surprise, 
> enforcing the change of mind, something needed to progress.
>
>
> All physicists would have preferred something new.  You don't make 
> progress just by confirmation.
>
> Brent
>
>
> So, if you tell me that the Higgs boson appeared by the psychic will of a 
> conspiracy of telepath physicists, (with some help of the engineers, I 
> guess), I don’ think Englert participated in this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> On 5/21/2019 1:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Telepathy doesn't happen necessarily at will. It only happens when certain 
> conditions are being met. Asking someone to produce telepathy on the spot 
> is like asking him to produce Higgs Boson on the spot. So let's do like 
> this: you produce me a Higgs Boson, and I'll produce you a telepathy. If 
> you can't do it, it means Higgs Bosons don't exist. They are just anecdots 
> from a bunch of gurus at CERN.
> -- 
> 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/50a47b30-407b-497d-a1c4-d84d397f5928%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f46186b-156a-8853-fc7d-8e3255df085f%40verizon.net
>  
> 
> .
>
>
> -- 
> 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/95E57ED8-EDAF-485F-A6F6-57317C1C03EC%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> 
> .
>
>
> -- 
> 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 
> 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-23 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 6:08:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2019 3:37 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New 
> Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various aspects 
> of inner mental space or psychology.
>
>
> I think you impute to much cleverness there.   A lot it is, or was, 
> intended as real history providing both provenance and justification for 
> whatever ethics was being pushed at the time.
>
> Brent
>

The writers of these narratives were rather clever. These are done in a 
literary "shape-shifter" fashion so that they can be interpreted in a wide 
range of ways. The book of Exodus, or Shemot (שְׁמוֹת) in Hebrew Shem = 
name and Shemot is plural or means the list of names, has the children of 
Israel leave Egypt (Mitzrayim) in the narrow place (Mezaryim), narrow in 
one meaning because of the Nile. They are lead to the Red Sea where the 
water is separated and crash, where red is symbolic of blood. Also remember 
one of the plagues on Egypt was the Nile turned to blood. This is a birth 
motif, and certainly one message is this is a metaphor for the birth of 
Israel. The Torah is packed full of this sort of thing, and it involves a 
lot of word play. 

This is not to say there are not literal meanings as well, which in 
different ages are rather different. The American conservative Protestant 
idea about Christianity is a peculiar redaction on the whole meaning. I 
can't say about the Koran and what Islamic scholars think. It is not a 
subject I have delved into, nor am I ever likely to. Samiya has posted some 
curious stuff that equates Koranic passages with meaning about atoms and at 
one time if I recall about the Higgs boson. So the writers there were 
clever enough to make the narratives and poetry shift metaphors and 
retranslate meaning into different forms as the world learns and matures. 
It really is one reason these scriptures have remained so culturally and 
socially powerful for many centuries.

My religious background is Judaism and Catholicism. I ended up choosing 
Judaism, simply because it is in a way more intellectual, it is more fun, 
and Catholicism has it perks here and there but it is also rather grave and 
grey. I generally consider myself quite agnostic about the idea of an 
infinite disembodied entity that created and controls everything. The idea 
simply runs into contradictions. I can still go to the minion, where it is 
the same reason the fiddler stays on the roof (Issac B Singer) --- 
tradition. If I were Catholic instead I think it would be the same thing. 

LC

-- 
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/7a7e5caf-76d3-4910-b456-89a18ded0cc4%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-23 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 12:35:39 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about 
> God. I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate 
> the subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only 
> keep my duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn 
> therefrom. This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are 
> being theorised in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, 
> etc. 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html  
>

There are similar ideas in Christianity. God chooses who is to have 
paradise, which raises a curious conundrum. If there are those not chosen 
and they die eternally or suffer in flames eternally then it means God has 
effectively selected them for that fate. If this is the case then 
ultimately God creates many humans just so they can suffer eternally. Such 
a God makes Adolf Hitler look benevolent by comparison.

I read a translation of the Koran right after the 9/11 attacks. It is 
heavily marinated with eschatology with flames and suffering. In fact it is 
far more than what exists in the New Testament, which itself is pretty 
threatening along these lines.

A related issue, say with whether God is good, was discussed between 
Socrates and Euthyphro 4 centuries before Christianity and 1000 years 
before Islam. The question is whether God is good because he is inherently 
so and has no choice in matter, or whether God is good because He chooses 
that. In the first case this is a limitation on God's free will, which 
limits his omnipotence. In the second case if God has the choice to be 
good, then what is good, ethically right or morally pure is something 
outside of God and thus God is not omnipresent with all things. 

In fact this sort of thing is the type of paradox that always emerges with 
the matter of God. God is then an infinite unknowable and anything we try 
to define as God or to label as His character runs into contradictions. 
 For this reason the topic is not appropriate for science or a related 
subject where proof, evidence, measurement and empiricism are used.

The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New 
Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various aspects 
of inner mental space or psychology. I am not sure about the Koran, maybe 
there are similar currents. While we can't disprove the existence of God, 
we can illustrate how certain ideas about God do not match a scientific 
understanding of the world. Also much of these things involve magical 
thinking. Jesus turning water into wine is really much the same idea as 
Cinderella's fairy godmother turning mice and a pumpkin into a carriage 
drawn by a team of horses. It's magical thinking.

LC 

-- 
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/380546c4-e260-4315-9061-ee07c3f2ec33%40googlegroups.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> If Higgs Boson were real, it should be *very very* easy to show it. So 
> show it to me.
>

Well here they are:

[image: CMS second Higgs data.jpg]
 

-- 
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/cd54f1f4-1e40-4af7-9fd5-25e8a6a07d28%40googlegroups.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-20 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 5:55:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 May 2019, at 14:13, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:18:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> I heard there are a couple of people that claim they've been on the Moon. 
>> I asked them to prove it to me by going again, but they said they cannot do 
>> it. What do you think ? Is this anecdote true ?
>>
>
> When I was a kid I was big on the moon landing. We went on a vacation to 
> Florida and saw one of the Saturn V rockets lift off. The thing is that if 
> these were faked, then NASA built a 370 foot tall rocket that roared off 
> the launch pad only to ditch the thing in the ocean or some such event and 
> then do a studio enactment. If NASA were to build such a machine, why fake 
> it? --- they might as well have gone all the way. 
>
> For a 5 years in the 90s I was employed in spacecraft navigation. I worked 
> the mechanics on how to get a spacecraft to some orbit in space, whether 
> around Earth or out into the solar system, or to reach some other planetary 
> body. I timed my visits to the Kennedy Space Center to watch shuttle 
> launches, one landing and some Delta launches. This stuff is not faked. 
> There is in fact a visitor center where an unused Saturn V rocket is 
> displayed. 
>
> The idea that moon landings are faked is in line with other historical 
> denials, such as holocaust denial or that black slaves in the south really 
> enjoyed their status and so forth. Conspiracy ideas and nonsense about 
> alt-history or alt-science such as creationism (even flat earth stuff is 
> getting popular) are growing in decibel volume these days. It is a sign the 
> minds of people, particularly Americans, are being rubbished up.
>
>
> It is very sad sign that education has been lowering down for sometimes. 
> It confirms my feeling that fake theologies, like in most religious 
> institutions is a bad training in argument per-authority. 
> We will leave the Middle-Âge and obscurantism when theology will be 
> returned back at the faculty of science, where we are humble and modest, 
> never claim truth, and propose theories with means of evaluation.
> The separation of science and theology has separated the human and the 
> exact sciences making them both inexact and inhuman.
>
> Bruno
>

I would question to what extent theology has been ever a faculty of 
science. Since I presume most people on this list are Christian I will use 
that, where if you think about it Jesus turning water into wine is not 
really that different an idea from Cinderella's fairy godmother turning 
mice and a pumpkin into a team of horses bridled to a carriage. In both 
instances you have some supernatural being, or a being capable of 
supernatural powers, able to convert matter from one form to another by 
shear force of thought or will. The difference is the narrative about Jesus 
is offered up as absolute divine truth and the story about Cinderella is a 
bit more honest and is framed as a fairy tale. 

Now with theology we can push this into metaphor, where Jesus making wine 
out of water is symbolic of going from baptism to communion. Lazarus being 
raised from the dead is also a suspension of natural principles, where as 
the narrative has it Lazarus was pretty far gone and dead for 3 days, but 
Jesus raising him from death. That violates of course thermodynamic 
principles. The metaphor however could be made this is about discarding old 
ways with dirty rags and decay for a new sort of vibrant life. The three 
days also stand in for the resurrection motif. I would though say that even 
if one does take these are purely metaphorical that this is not so much 
science, but rather language arts and literature.

LC 

-- 
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/b8720890-92d1-4a73-a041-fbe736f749ed%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Precision

2019-05-19 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>>>> > 
>>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>>  
>>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>>> > 
>>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
>>>> Chapter 
>>>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>>>
>>>> Lol. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>>> number.
>>>
>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
>>> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
>>> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
>>> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
>>> persistent histories decorum.
>>>
>>> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
>> region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
>> sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
>> experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
>> and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
>> electron's quantum numbers.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LC
>>>  
>>>
>>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>>>
>>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>>>
>>>> Bruno 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron 
> as a particle.
>
> That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
> Thank you all for the precisions. 
>

> Bruno
>

What I say is the way quantum mechanics really works, and is backed by 
loads of experimental data.

LC

-- 
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/b97a9bc0-944b-46e3-aa46-9f107f375063%40googlegroups.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-18 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:45:25 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Of course. Do you think that what they teach you at school is the truth ? 
> History is invented by the winners. History is just an anecdotal story.
>

History is nuanced, but I think we can be sure that Julius Caesar was real, 
he lead a campaign in Gaul and was killed at the forum by Cassius and 
Brutus. What is uncertain are all the particularities. History is an 
approximate perspective, but it is of some factual relevancy.

LC
 

>
> On Saturday, 18 May 2019 00:22:28 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>>
>>> Landing on the Moon is anecdotal, since is only reported by 3 people. 
>>> Telepathies are reported by 7 billion people all the time, including me, so 
>>> they are not anecdotal. They are like breathing. Everybody breaths. And if 
>>> you say you never had telepathies, you lie.
>>>
>>
>> What balderdash! By this reasoning since Abraham Lincoln, Pope Julius II 
>> and Alexander the Great are dead and all who lived in their time are all 
>> dead they and the events involved with them are all anecdotal.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/334cd103-2c3a-40d6-b510-79259420e9b5%40googlegroups.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-17 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Landing on the Moon is anecdotal, since is only reported by 3 people. 
> Telepathies are reported by 7 billion people all the time, including me, so 
> they are not anecdotal. They are like breathing. Everybody breaths. And if 
> you say you never had telepathies, you lie.
>

What balderdash! By this reasoning since Abraham Lincoln, Pope Julius II 
and Alexander the Great are dead and all who lived in their time are all 
dead they and the events involved with them are all anecdotal.

LC
 

>
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 20:13:35 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>>
>> Just because an article in a journal of APS, AAAS (both organizations of 
>> which I am a member), or Nature appears, doesn't mean the subject matter of 
>> the article is true. I had an EE educated father with a dozen patents that 
>> "believed" in psychic phenomena, and helping him investigate was very 
>> sobering, as all leads ended in a brick wall - when it came to actually 
>> performing. That's how I met Randi. So much anecdotal "evidence." But the 
>> bottom line was, all anecdotes, when one does due diligence to see the 
>> performance - can't demonstrate, without exception. And, Cosmin, if you 
>> would actually investigate, rather than decide how "believable" anecdotal 
>> stories are - you might change your "beliefs!"
>> Cheers! Howard Marks
>>
>> On 5/17/2019 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> Also in cases of telepathy and precognitions the "technology" and the 
>>> "motivation" existed at the moment of their occurrence. Actually, it seems 
>>> that the conditions required for paranormal phenomena are being met way 
>>> more often that the conditions required for Moon landing.*
>>>
>>
>> If you're right about that then it should be easy to find 
>> ironclad evidence within the month that will convince even the most 
>> skeptical editors of journals like Physical Review Letters, Nature or 
>> Science that telepathy and precognition actually exist. So let's make a 
>> bet and I'll give you 10 to one odds; if a pro ESP article appears before 
>> June 17 2019 in any of those journals I'll give you $10,000, if it doesn't 
>> you only have to give me $100. And remember the article doesn't need to 
>> explain why the phenomena exists it just has to show that something exists 
>> that needs explaining, So do we have a bet?
>>
>>  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/CAJPayv01SmhNhzFt8QfhC-vZdzRc6nayOh%2Bm91yo2NcmUX6Pig%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/1a0a4d46-70d7-4a1a-84d0-87fb0a421972%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ‘I believe there are 
>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>  
>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>> > 
>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>
>> Lol. 
>>
>>
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
>
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
>
>
> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
> persistent histories decorum.
>
> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
electron's quantum numbers.

LC
 

>
>
>
> LC
>  
>
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > 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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
>>  
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/da2c3c46-9542-40d8-a384-dd08a40f1ce4%40googlegroups.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:18:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I heard there are a couple of people that claim they've been on the Moon. 
> I asked them to prove it to me by going again, but they said they cannot do 
> it. What do you think ? Is this anecdote true ?
>

When I was a kid I was big on the moon landing. We went on a vacation to 
Florida and saw one of the Saturn V rockets lift off. The thing is that if 
these were faked, then NASA built a 370 foot tall rocket that roared off 
the launch pad only to ditch the thing in the ocean or some such event and 
then do a studio enactment. If NASA were to build such a machine, why fake 
it? --- they might as well have gone all the way. 

For a 5 years in the 90s I was employed in spacecraft navigation. I worked 
the mechanics on how to get a spacecraft to some orbit in space, whether 
around Earth or out into the solar system, or to reach some other planetary 
body. I timed my visits to the Kennedy Space Center to watch shuttle 
launches, one landing and some Delta launches. This stuff is not faked. 
There is in fact a visitor center where an unused Saturn V rocket is 
displayed. 

The idea that moon landings are faked is in line with other historical 
denials, such as holocaust denial or that black slaves in the south really 
enjoyed their status and so forth. Conspiracy ideas and nonsense about 
alt-history or alt-science such as creationism (even flat earth stuff is 
getting popular) are growing in decibel volume these days. It is a sign the 
minds of people, particularly Americans, are being rubbished up.

LC

-- 
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/abdb9978-596d-4357-921c-b6318fc65ce2%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>>>  
>>>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
>>>>> Chapter 
>>>>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently 
>>>> understood number.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>>>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space 
>>>> and 
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>>>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> \
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>>
>>> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
>>> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
>>> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
>>> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
>>> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>>>
>>> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was 
>>> used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>>>
>>>  
>>> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons 
>>> we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
>>> explain telepathy and precognition.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed 
>> up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
>> more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
>> There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
>> tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
>> found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> But, in order:
>
> 1. Precognition.
> 2. Telepathy.
> 3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
> 4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see 
> are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
> The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). 
> 3 is crazy.
> But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't 
> really say the others are "crazy", can they?
>
> @philipthrift
>

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and time to 
create this multifold appearance this electron crosses horizons. That means 
information other than quantum numbers for electrons, spin, charge, isospin 
and mass, does not traverse all of space and time. This means that while 
the electrons in my body or brain may be really manifestations of the same 
electron defining those in other brains that reading thoughts is not 
possible this way. Think about it, if this is right then this one electron 
manifests itself with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any 
sense that we might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron 
pressure in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

LC 

-- 
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/076704e5-abd2-4381-a5ca-f183032f282f%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>  
>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>> > 
>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>>
>>> Lol. 
>>>
>>>
>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>> number.
>>
>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>> time.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>>
>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> \
>>
>>
>
> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>
> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>
> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used 
> to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>
>  
> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we 
> see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
> explain telepathy and precognition.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed up 
hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.

LC

-- 
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/14d39a23-10c4-4888-a389-0e5f210b1d6d%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Precision

2019-05-14 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>  
> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>
> Lol. 
>
>
The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

LC
 

> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com.


Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

2019-05-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
My my, this list has started to be dominated by woo woo. There is no 
evidence for telepathy and the rest. Don't even bother replying to that, I 
will not further respond. This is all nonsense.

Can this list return to physics and science instead of pseudoscientific 
rubbish?

LC

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of 
> consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily 
> explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed 
> create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can 
> communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any 
> chance of being explained ? 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6915995b-ae6e-4d05-af4a-cd77127fed4b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Does all computation generate heat?

2019-05-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> No.  Erasing data generates heat.  So reversible computation is, in 
> principle,  possible without hear generation.
>
> Brent
>

That is basically it. Landauer demonstrated that information loss results 
in lost energy, internal energy or waste heat. This does not mean there is 
no thermal energy if no information is lost or erased, but that there is no 
change in such. The entropy of a quantum system with density matrix ρ is S 
= -k Tr[ρ log(ρ)]. The unitary transformation ρ = U^†ρU can be applied to 
this Shannon-von Neumann formula and shown it is invariant. It is easy, 
just take the Taylor series for the log. So quantum computer that do not 
suffer decoherence are reversible and produce no heat. Once photons come 
blasting out of there then bets are off.

I sort of follow Bruno below, and I concur with the statement the 
Fischer-Griess Monster group is important. It is important for a quantum 
error correction code. Its connection to moonshine, say with the 
Brunier-Kent-Ono partition theorem etc, that the monster is associated with 
all realizable number theoretic computations. Quantum numbers then have a 
Gödel number representation, say as prime numbers or zeros of the Riemann 
zeta function, and all possible errors computable may be ciphered by the 
Monster. Susskind has this idea of entangled black holes, but realistically 
such an entanglement must be highly partitioned into partial entanglements 
across some cosmic or inflationary landscape. This partition would obey the 
Brunier-Kent-Ono partition theorem, which its approximate solution as the 
Hardy-Ramanujan formula gives the density of states for strings and with 
black holes reproduces the Bekenstein formula. 

LC
 

>
> On 5/1/2019 1:56 AM, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics 
> class, for example.
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
>
> *Does all computation generate heat?*
>
> (Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
>
> - @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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark Matter

2019-04-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
We have constraints on the theory of dark matter as a modified gravity and 
as a particle in the Λ-CDM theory. The difficulties with modified gravity 
is that it does not work with galaxy clusters, which means if it is real it 
is restricted to the scale of galaxies. It works very well with galaxies, 
but of course now we find galaxies that appear to have no dark matter. 
However Λ-CDM has its troubles as well. The flavor changing force or 
quantum flavor dynamics, aka the weak interaction, would suggest that for 
an isospin number on DM that it could interact with a lepton. One possible 
interaction is the heavy DM particle changes the flavor of an electron to 
its neutrino and the DM particle now has a mass. This interaction would be 
visible as hell AFAICT. So maybe that is beyond energy scales, so it might 
just interact by the charged neutral Z. This is the WIMP scenario. However 
attempts to measure any interaction of this sort have turned up nothing. 

The Newtonian potential is Φ = -GM/r, while a form of emergent or modified 
gravity is Φ = -sqrt{GMa)ln(r/GM) where a = sqrt{Λ/3} for Λ the 
cosmological constant. Now what is curious about this is this potential 
would be something we would expect in a world with two spatial dimensions. 
A Gauss's law 

∫Φdl = ∫∫∇Φ·da = 2πGσ ∫∫dA 

for σ a mass per unit area on a region of integration. Trivially we can set 
πGσ ∫∫dA  = πGM for a particle. This is just 2-dim Poisson equation. The 
force is F = -∇Φ and we have -πFr =  πGM and we get a force F = -GM/r. This 
means the potential is Φ = -GMa ln(ar). So this is a case of an emergent 
gravity similar to MOND. But this requires one dimension lower. So if this 
type of gravitation exists it is a topological effect. The usual approach 
to gauge fields is you have a gauge potential *A*, here a one-form, and the 
fields are the two-form *F* = d*A* or d a differential operator. A 
topological field is one where there is a field two-form *F*, but it is not 
determined by a coboundary condition. so *F *=/= d*A*. In this case we 
might expect this field to occur on the boundary of a three dimensional 
region. Yet here if this emergent gravity is correct this field that would 
otherwise occur on a boundary occurs in three space. 

I would also expect if this theory were the case for there to be some 
particle physics component to this as well. The situation with physics is 
very strange now. In days of yore the problem was colliders were producing 
lots of particles nobody understands. Now colliders are producing nothing 
outside of the standard model, which by most reckoning is incomplete. We 
also have this dark matter problem that is a terrible obstruction to theory 
and phenomenology. That makes things rather interesting.

LC


On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 9:54:51 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> A second galaxy has been found that contains no Dark Matter. These odd 
> galaxies are about the same size as our Milky Way but contain 200 times 
> fewer stars. They pretty much rule out the idea that Dark Matter doesn't 
> exist and our laws of gravity just need to change because unlike every 
> other galaxy studied these 2 oddballs behave just as Newton says they 
> should.
>
> Second galaxy without dark matter discovered 
> 
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: First Picture If A Black Hole

2019-04-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I don't know why I got millions reduced to thousands and billions to 
millions. I looked up the mass of M87 BH and I find 2.5 billion solar 
masses.

LC

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:12:13 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:46 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>
>> > We will have to see what the Sgr*A image looks like of the Milky Way 
>> BH that is smaller, 104 thousand solar masses vs 2.5 million solar masses 
>> for M87*, but is closer only 27K light years, vs 55 million lyrs. 
>>
>
>
> Sgr*A is  4.5 million solar masses, the Black Hole in M87 is 6.5 billion 
> solar masses. From the earth they would have almost the same size even 
> though one is much closer than the other. And any radio telescope can 
> observe M87 but only those in the southern hemisphere can see Sgr*A. There 
> is probably less obscuring dust between us and M87 too because we don't 
> have to look through the long axis of our galaxy to see it.
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: First Picture If A Black Hole

2019-04-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:33:09 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/science/black-hole-picture.html
>
> John K Clark
>

 The image is constructed from a radio telescopic interferometer. The 
colors are in effect codes for the intensity of radiation coming off gas in 
an accretion disk around the black hole. The gas around the black hole was 
predicted to be more of an accretion donut, or proper spelling dough 
naught, and at first glance that is maybe what this is. We will have to see 
what the Sgr*A image looks like of the Milky Way BH that is smaller, 104 
thousand solar masses vs 2.5 million solar masses for M87*, but is closer 
only 27K light years, vs 55 million lyrs. 

To be honest I think the LIGO gravitational wave detection was more 
fundamental and really ground breaking. This is though interesting and it 
illustrates amazing resolution. The M87 BH is around two to three the 
radius of the solar system. So this technique will be used to look at a 
wide range of astrophysical systems.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO has ​already found another Gravitational Wave

2019-04-09 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 7:33:01 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> LIGO has only been back on for a few days but already they have detected a 
> new gravitational wave from a Black Hole merger slightly under 5 billion 
> light years away.  They've decided to stop most of the secrecy and report 
> things as soon as they find them, so they haven't finished calculating how 
> massive they were yet. 
>
> Just after turning back on another wave found 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

Given the distance these may be pretty massive BHs.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2199107-ligo-has-spotted-another-gravitational-wave-just-after-turning-back-on/

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green  > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark 
>> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A 
>> civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a 
>> rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that 
>> of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close 
>> to extremal).The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the 
>> cosmological horizon, and then feed some of it into the black hole in such 
>> a way as to further decrease its temperature (by pushing it closer to 
>> extremality). The sphere could use the rest of the energy for its own 
>> needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep growing over time.*
>>
>
>
> That could work, for a while. As long as you have a temperature difference 
> you can run a heat engine. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at 
> 2.7K so if you used a solar mass Black Hole as a heat sink you could 
> extract some work out of it because it has a temperature of only 0006k. 
> But it wouldn't be much as the efficiency would be very low;  and even 
> that pitiful trickle of work wouldn't last forever because over time the 
> Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation will get colder and, as it starts to 
> evaporate and gets smaller and smaller, the Black Hole will get hotter and 
> hotter until it explodes and disappears. 
>
> John K Clark
>

The CMB is not the Gibbon-Hawking radiation from the cosmological horizon. 
The CMB is what happened when the plasma of the semi-early universe 
coalesced into atom and the radiation was released. This happened about 
380k years into the evolution of the cosmos. The Gibbon-Hawking result of 
radiation due to the cosmological horizon.

To start I consider the elementary case is with the accelerated frame. An 
accelerated observer, g = acceleration, is on a hyperbolic path that 
asymptotes to a split horizon. The two horizons occur at some arbitrarily 
chosen origin. A quantum flutuation as a loop at this origin with a radius 
r has null geodesics connecting it to the accelerated frame. Assume this 
 accelerated observer approaches within r = c^2/g of the origin. Then the 
observer has causal contact with the loop throughout this Rindler wedge. 
The loop parameterized by a time or length d = 2πr = 2πct and in Euclidean 
time, since this is an off shell state and an instanton, the unitary 
operator e^{-iHt/ħ} → e^{-2πħωrħ}. Here the Hamiltonian is assumed to give 
energy ħω. Substitute in r = c^2/g we have a Boltzmann term e^{-2πħωc/g}. 
 An identification of this with e^{-E/kT} leads easily to the temperature

T = ħg/2πkc.

So temperature is the same as acceleration! This is a quick an dirty 
derivation of Unruh radiation, which I will admit glosses over some points. 
Some work and the identification of the acceleration with a black hole 
gives Bekenstein-Hawking temperature for a black hole.

The Gibbon-Hawking temperature can be found if we let g = c^2/(horizon 
distance) and for the cosmological constant Λ = 10^{-56}m^{-2}  and R = 
sqrt{3/Λ} ~ 10^{28}m then g ~ 10^{-12}m/s^2 The temperature 

T = ħc^2 sqrt{Λ/3}/2πkc ~ 10^{-30}K.

That is an absurdly cold temperature. In order to use that as an energy 
source you would need to have a cold bath that is even colder. That is not 
really possible. Another way to see it is the wavelength of most of this 
radiation is on the order of the cosmological horizon scale. You would need 
a detector on that scale to detect a boson.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 5:03:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>  
>
>> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. 
>> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine 
>> equations are then not entirely computable and there can't exist a 
>> Turing machine (in the classical sense a q → ∞ convex set) that computes 
>> quantum outcomes.
>>
>
> I think the connection between Quantum Mechanics and  Godel's uncertainty 
> is pretty tenuous. Neither a Quantum Computer or a conventional computer 
> can compute the 7918th Busy Beaver number, and even though its computable 
> and finite its very unlikely a Quantum Computer could compute the Ackermann 
> function in polynomial time which effectively makes it non-computable for 
> practical purposes.   
>  
>
>> > I then maintain the solution to the quantum measurement problem is 
>> that there can't exist such a solution. It is an unsolvable problem.
>>
>
> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve 
> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by 
> opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out 
> what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.
>
> John K Clark  
>


You can't compute outcome prior to an observation. Quantum interpretations 
are meant to gives some explanation for quantum outcomes, but they all 
contradict each other, but are still consistent with QM. This sound very 
similar to forcing conditions on undecidable propositions.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
An infinite processing does not necessarily require an infinite amount of 
information. A stupid program that just toggles between two states 
endlessly requires a single qubit. A Rabi oscillation of a two state atom 
in a cavity fits the bill, and if it can run forever then in this case as 
there is no input energy needed. Now if you want a program and runs forever 
and that does not come back to the same state except for a finite number of 
times (or if it does return an infinite number of times it is a small 
measure), then you will require an infinite number of states available. 
Entropy of information is S = -k sum_{n=1}^NP_n log(P_n), and an elementary 
case of an infinite number of states, say N → ∞, are states with p_n = 1/N 
and 

S = -k sum_{n=1}^N(1/N) log(1/N) = k sum_{n=1}^N(1/N) log(N) = log(N)

and for N → ∞ this is infinite.

This gets to the heart of a whether nature is discrete or continuous, or 
finite or infinite. We are always faced with a discomfort either way we 
think about this. If things are finite, then we always sense there is 
“more,” and if things are infinite then we run into difficulties 
quantifying that. Infinity is not really a number, but an odd cardinality 
of a set. James Carse wrote a book *Infinite and Finite Games*, which 
compares games of some bounded level of knowability or complexity with 
those unbounded. We have then the notion of finite games as having some 
envelope that defines a “perfect game play,” such as what one can do with 
the game blackjack. Quantum games make even finite games with a known bound 
on a perfect game less knowable, and in some cases unknowable. In fact it 
would take an infinite amount of processing to find the perfect game and 
what the percentage of winning a game is.

Whether space is discrete or continuous is potentially a sort of duality. 
Any causal system must fit in a convex system, such as a bounded region of 
a space, a set or a polytope. Convex systems describe L^p normed spaces 
such that |X|_p = (sum_n x_n^p)^{1/p}. Quantum mechanics is an L^2 system 
such that a sum of probabilities sum_P_n = sum_n|a_n|^2, which is a sort of 
square of a distance in Hilbert space.  The dual of an L^p system according 
to convex sets is an L^q system with 1/p + 1/q = 1 so the dual system is 
also L^2. This is also a metric space system, and it is spacetime. A pure 
stochastic system is a sum of probabilities and is an L^1 system.  The dual 
convex set is a system L^∞, which corresponds to the singular collapse of a 
metric space. This is a completely deterministic system, which can include 
classical mechanics or deterministic Turing machines etc. 

For stochastic systems we have entropy measures. The standard on is the 
Shannon entropy S = -sum_n p_n log(p_n). and there is the relative entropy 
measure S = -sum_n p_n log(p_n/q_n). This is useful for looking at 
conditional entropy, such as S(p|p + dp). It is not hard to see that this 
leads to a metric’

S(P|P+dP) = -½sum_n dp_n^2/p_n

This spans the set of problems with subadditivity. We can generalize this 
with something called the Rényi entropy 

S = 1/(1 – q) ln(sum_n=1^∞p_n^q),

Where this gives the subadditivity rule

S(P + Q) = S(P) + S(Q) + (1 – q)S(P)S(Q).,

where for q = 1 there is no subadditivity. It is also possible to show that 
for q = 1 this gives the Shannon entropy. To do this the limit q → 1 with 
the Rényi entropy and using l’Hospital’s rule. For q = 2 this recovers the 
metric space measure or distance. 

So we can interpolate between these measures. The relationship between 
infinity and finiteness is then evident here. A pure stochastic system is 
difficult to define, but we have a sense that pure randomness is something 
that is not finitely described. In some ways it is not computable, as seen 
with random number generators that give more the appearance of randomness. 
A perfectly random sequence of integers can’t be data compressed beyond 
some measure, and we might be tempted to say they can’t be compressed at 
all. However, even the most random of sequences will contain repeats of 
integers that are compressible. What is this limit? Zurek demonstrated that 
it is not possible to determine if a data compression algorithm is really 
minimal or not. If I compress some data, I can never know whether I have 
the absolutely minimal compression. This is a form of the no-halting 
decision problem, and as this is connected to Cantor diagonalization is 
also ultimately tied to infinity.

However, we have Hawking’s results that the entropy of a black hole is S = 
A/4ℓ_p^2 = N or the number of Planck areas of a black hole horizon. This 
means a discrete structure to spacetime eliminates any infinite content to 
spacetime. So within that setting have some uncertainty on whether it makes 
sense to talk about a continuum of spacetime or whether there really exist 
random numbers in the universe. If the Hilbert spacetime of the universe is 
finite, then in this duality 

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread Lawrence Crowell
For two galaxies accelerating away from each other one might in an "in 
principle" manner think of a tether connecting these two galaxies. Some 
sufficiently capable ET then manages to build this tether continually out 
of a magnetic material that passes through coils and the Faraday effect 
kicks in. This is not exactly eternal, for eventually these ETs will run 
out of resources in their galaxy, but it does seem to suggest dark energy 
could be mined. 

There is however no "free lunch" per se here. 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542

so you can read this without me having to spend the next hour typing this 
up again.

This all stems from the Hamiltonian constraint NH = 0 which then has a 
kinetic and potential part. The eternal accelerated expansion is then just 
a way that ever more negative gravitational potential energy generates ever 
more kinetic energy.

LC

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 3:23:48 PM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered 
> by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the 
> universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be 
> able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton 
> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from 
> the energy generated. 
>
> So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this. 
> The first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but 
> opposite charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long 
> enough that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark 
> energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. 
> On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away 
> energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that 
> would cause the objects to spiral closer together. If the two effects are 
> perfectly balanced, the orbits would be stable and the system would keep 
> radiating away energy forever—energy extracted from the acceleration in the 
> universe’s expansion. 
>
> The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark 
> energy, the spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This 
> force is stronger when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer 
> distance between the ends. Thus an oscillating spring would experience an 
> oscillating force, and have energy continually added to it, increasing the 
> amplitude of its oscillations. To keep the string from breaking, a 
> mechanism for extracting energy from the spring would have to be added, and 
> if energy is extracted at the same rate it is added the system would be 
> stable. 
>
> As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in the 
> literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them. 
>
> Perhaps we should look for signs of these devices being constructed, in 
> the event highly advanced alien civilizations might be constructing them. 
> Any civilization that constructs such a device would probably qualify as 
> Type IV. With infinite energy it’d be possible to do an endless variety of 
> things: run a universal dovetailer, or resurrect the dead (simply by 
> resurrecting every person who COULD have ever existed, a set that obviously 
> includes every person who DID actually exist), etc. 
>
> -Mason Green

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-04-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I am going to think about this. The problem I see is that LIGO detects 
information in a gravity wave and converts that into our electronic 
information. If this information really drops as 1/r then from a Gauss' law 
perspective it means a gravitational wave propagating from its source 
produces information a the rate I(t) ~ r, for r the radius of the wave 
front. I have some problems with that.

LC

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:06 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> >> Yes but LIGO detects the peak to peak displacement of a wave not its 
>>> power or energy as cameras and radios do. And that means LIGO's ability to 
>>> detect wave producing things is reduced with distance much more slowly than 
>>> with telescopes that deal with electromagnetic waves. Peak-to peak 
>>> displacement is proportional to the Root Mean Square of the wave and the 
>>> RMS is proportional to the square root of the power. So if there is 4 times 
>>> less power in the gravitational wave (because the source is twice as far 
>>> away) the peak to peak displacement is only reduced by a factor of 2.
>>>
>>  
>
> > I guess you will have to give a reference on this.
>>
>
> From LIGO's website:  
>
> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts 
>
> "*improvements will ultimately make LIGO's interferometers 10 times more 
> sensitive than their initial incarnation. A 10-fold increase in sensitivity 
> means that LIGO will be able to detect gravitational waves 10 times farther 
> away than Initial LIGO, which translates into 'sampling' 1000-times more 
> volume of space (volume increases with the cube of the distance. So 10 
> times farther away means 10x10x10=1000 times the volume of space)"*
>
> From: 
>
> https://dcc.ligo.org/public//P070082/004/P070082-v4.pdf
>
> "the gravitational wave field strength is proportional to the second time 
> derivative of the quadrupole moment of the source, and it falls off in 
> amplitude inversely with distance from the source"
>
> From:
>
> https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2016/02/19/how-close-is-too-close/
>
>
> *"**The amount of shift caused by a gravitational wave is due to its 
> amplitude, not its energy. While the energy of gravitational waves follow 
> the inverse square relation, the amplitude of gravitational waves follows 
> the inverse distance relation. In other words, if we were half as far away 
> from the merger we’d have seen four times the energy, but only twice the 
> shift."*
>
> And note that it is the shift that LIGO detect not energy. 
>
> > I can see in one sense what you are saying about RMS, but I don't think 
>> your quite correct still. The interferometer measures a quadrupole 
>> displacemement.
>>
>
> That just means as one leg of LIGO is moved to a maximum distance the 
> other leg is moved to a minimum distance, and the difference between the 
> maximum and minimum is what causes interference in the Laser beam that LIGO 
> detects. Needless to say that is not the way a radio receiver works and is 
> not way film detects light either.   
>
>  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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-03-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 8:23:02 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 8:43 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>  
>
>> > An antenna or any receiver of electromagnetic waves in effect measures 
>> the displacement of electrons or equivalently a current is produced.
>>
>
> A radio receiver detects the power in a AC circuit, and that is the Root 
> Mean Square voltage times the Root Mean Square current. Unlike LIGO 
> radios don't detect peak to peak values.
>
> > A gravitational wave is measured according to strain, but a strain 
>> through distance has an energy content as well.
>>
>
> Yes but LIGO detects the peak to peak displacement of a wave not its power 
> or energy as cameras and radios do. And that means LIGO's ability to detect 
> wave producing things is reduced with distance much more slowly than with 
> telescopes that deal with electromagnetic waves. Peak-to peak displacement 
> is proportional to the Root Mean Square of the wave and the RMS is 
> proportional to the square root of the power. So if there is 4 times less 
> power in the gravitational wave (because the source is twice as far away) 
> the peak to peak displacement is only reduced by a factor of 2.
>

I guess you will have to give a reference on this. I looked at some 
references and I can't find anything on what you say here:

https://labcit.ligo.caltech.edu/~dhs/Adv-LIGO/old/interferometric-gray-paper.pdf

https://labcit.ligo.caltech.edu/~dhs/Adv-LIGO/old/interferometric-gray-paper.pdf
 
I can see in one sense what you are saying about RMS, but I don't think 
your quite correct still. The interferometer measures a quadrupole 
displacemement. There is the quadrupole tensor Q = 3d_id_j - d^2δ_{ij}, 
where fields are Q_{ij}/r^4. The distance to the source is r and the 
distance between the two inspiralling black holes is d. The displacement is 
given by the metric g_{ab} = δ_{ab} + h_{ab} for the ++ and xx 
polarizations. The ++ polarization metric will be h_{++} = 2d_+^2/r^2, for 
r the distance to the source, and the curvature is R_++ = ½h_{++}R = 
d_{++}/r^4. The Einstein space criterion the metric proportional to the 
Ricci curvature and the metric giving the displacement means the 
displacement is ~ 1/r^2.

LC


> > So gravitational waves have intensities that drops with the square of 
>> the distance
>
>
> I'm not disputing that, but that fact is not inconsistent with the fact 
> that LIGO's ability to detect gravitational wave sources only decreases 
> linearly with distance because with LIGO the key thing is peak to peak 
> displacement of the wave not its intensity.
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-03-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 8:32:53 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:05 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:\
>  
>
>> > Weak gravitational waves are very similar to electromagnetic waves,
>>
>
> From a practical point of view there are 2 differences:
>
> 1) Our ability to detect electromagnetic waves decreases with the square 
> of the distance, but LIGO's ability to detect gravitational waves only 
> decreases linearly with distance because unlike film or CCD cameras LIGO 
> does not detect the energy in the wave it detects the displacement the wave 
> produces. 
>

An antenna or any receiver of electromagnetic waves in effect measures the 
displacement of electrons or equivalently a current is produced. This is 
associated by Maxwell's equation by electric and magnetic fields with 
energy. A gravitational wave is measured according to strain, but a strain 
through distance has an energy content as well.

Let us think about very weak gravitational waves. The metric for weak 
gravitational fields is a flat space metric plus a perturbing particular

g_{ab} = η_{ab} - h_{ab}.

This perturbing metric has 10 independent elements. We now eliminate the 
diagonal elements from the metric h_{ab} with a trace condition, which 
leaves only 6 independent variables. 

The Christoffel symbols are

Γ^a_{bc} = ½g^{ad}(∂_cg_{db} + ∂_bg_{dc} - ∂_dg_{bc}),

Where linear in the perturbing term this is

Γ^a_{bc} = ½(∂_ch^a_b + ∂_bh^d_c - ∂^ah_{bc}).

Now we compute the Riemann curvature tensor and eliminate the Γ^2 terms as 
O(h^2) and so we have

R^a_{bcd} = ∂_cΓ^a_{bd} - ∂_dΓ^a_{bc}

∂_b∂_ch^a_d - ∂^a∂_ch_{bd} + ∂^a∂_dh_{bc} - ∂_b∂_dh^a_c.

The first line above should look familiar for anyone who knows 
electromagnetic theory as a commutator of coordinates on a differential and 
gauge connection. 

The Einstein field equation may be written as R_{ab} - ½Rg_{ab} = 
8πGT_{ab}, as well as the form R_{ab} = 8πG(T_{ab}  - ½ Tg_{ab}) where the 
Ricci curvature and Ricci curvature scalar are computed with a lot of 
contraction on indices to get

□h_{ab} + ∂_a∂_bh - ∂_a∂_ch^c_b - ∂_a∂_ch^c_b = 8πG(2T_{ab} - ½ Tg_{ab}).

That is a complicated looking differential equation, but it is 
underdetermined. This equation has 6 variables and we need to eliminate 4 
of them. Now this requires a gauge-like condition as with electromagnetism. 
The standard one is Γ^a_{bc}g^{bc} = 0. which in our linearized gravity 
contains first order derivatives of h_{ab}. This looks similar to the 
Coulomb or Lorentz gauge in electromagnetism. This gauge condition is then 
∂^bh_{ab} = ½∂_ah and this eliminates lots of stuff as we get

□h_{ab} = 8πG(2T_{ab} - ½ Tg_{ab}).

This looks a lot more like a wave equation, where for T_{ab} = 0 in source 
free region this is □h_{ab} = 0, and the box is the d'Alembertian second 
order with 

∂^i∂_ih_{ab} - ∂^2_th_{ab} = 0

which is a familiar wave equation. This wave equation has not just one term 
but two, which correspond to the two helicity states of a gravitational 
wave. For a spherically symmetric wave the intensity will drop as 1/r^2 
from the point of origin. Waves at higher orders may have quadrupole and 
dipole terms and even higher, but for sufficient distance from the source 
it becomes more spherically symmetry FAPP. So gravitational waves have 
intensities that drops with the square of the distance far removed from the 
source.

This is the first order wave equation most used to compute expected 
gravitational waves at the LIGO. The complicated stuff is in using the 
2T_{ab} - ½ Tg_{ab} for the generation of gravitational waves by imploding 
matter. The collision of black holes means one needs to expand the terms 
with 

g_{ab} = η_{ab} - h^1_{ab} - h^2_{ab} - h^2_{ab} 

where these higher orders in h deviate from the linearity with orders 
below. This is similar to post-Newtonian formalism, but once you have 
h^1_{ab} you use those to compute h^2_{ab} linear in h^2_{ab}, but with O(( 
h^1_{ab})^2) terms, and then continue to the next order and … . Then to get 
professional about this these terms are expressed in orbital parameters or 
Euler angles etc. 

LC
 

>
> 2) It's easy for telescopes to determine the direction electromagnetic 
> waves are coming from but difficult to determine its distance, with LIGO 
> it's easy to determine the distance from the gravitational wave source but 
> hard to determine the direction it's coming from.
>
>  > The graviton is quantum mechanically much the same as biphotons that 
>> occurs with bunching or Hanbury Brown and Twiss physics. 
>>
>
> LIGO can not detect gravitons and even if the graviton exists I am 
> skeptical anyone will ever be able to detect it.
>
> > The main advantage of having a third LIGO is that now the source can be 
>> triangulated more accurately. 
>>
>
> It also increases sensitivity. If 

Re: LIGO

2019-03-29 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:36:24 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Unless there is some last second glitch the 2 LIGO gravitational wave 
> detectors in the USA and the Virgo detector in Italy will go back online on 
> Monday. The 2 LIGO detectors will be about 40% more sensitive now after the 
> upgrade and the slightly smaller Virgo detector about 50% better. And, 
> because their ability to detect waves only decrease linearly with distance 
> not as distance squared, together they will be able to see gravitational 
> events in about 3 times the previous volume. They will run for a year 
> before being shut down for yet another upgrade.
>
> And if we're lucky before the end of the year a fourth detector, KAGRA in 
> Japan, may join the party; and although smaller than LIGO it might turn 
> out to be even more sensitive because unlike the other 3 it's built 
> underground and does not work at room temperature but is cooled down to 20 
> degrees Kelvin (-253 C, -425 F) . I think that is very cool, in more ways 
> than one.
>
>  John K Clark
>

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Weak gravitational waves are 
rather easily derived with what is termed linear Einstein field equations. 
By this it is meant that the connection coefficients appear only linearly, 
and the quadratic product of them that appears in the Riemann curvature 
tensor is small and ignored. The connection terms have coupling terms on 
the order O(G/c^2), and the square is O(G^2/c^4) which is negligible in the 
weak limit. Weak gravitational waves are very similar to electromagnetic 
waves, except there are two polarization or equivalently the helicity is 2. 
The graviton is quantum mechanically much the same as biphotons that occurs 
with bunching or Hanbury Brown and Twiss physics. That in turn is a bosonic 
version of the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions. 

The main advantage of having a third LIGO is that now the source can be 
triangulated more accurately. With only two detectors you can only 
determine the source is in some band stretching across the sky. Now the 
source of gravitational waves can be triangulated with the LIGO data.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:59:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:46 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>  
>
>> *> The wave function for a plane wave e^{ikx} has the phase ikx for k = 
>> 2πp/h, h = Planck's constant, is then real and the total phase ikx - iEt 
>> then means time is imaginary valued as well. [...]  The imaginary part is 
>> not time we measure with clocks and so tunneling has no meaning with 
>> respect to that definition of time.*
>
>
> The trouble is, to get some sort of intuitive physical understanding of 
> Quantum Tunneling, as opposed to a purely mathematical understanding, it is 
> necessary to make a connection between the thing we measure with a clock 
> and the thing we wish to understand. This is how I think about it, I'm sure 
> it's not exactly correct but let me know if it's at least approximately 
> right or if you know of another way that is less wrong:
>
> If I want to send you a electron as a message (attack at dawn for example) 
> and speed is important I can't use Quantum Tunneling to send it to you 
> faster than light because only the successful attempts are instantaneous. 
> If you're on the other side of an energy barrier and I don't have enough 
> energy to get through it most of my attempts to send you an electron will 
> be unsuccessful. And the probability of the electron getting through drops 
> exponentially with the width of the barrier.  Thus although my very rare 
> successes will be instantaneous if you take into account all my failed 
> attempts then the time between my desire to send you a message and the time 
> you receive it will always be longer than if I forgot about Quantum 
> Tunneling and just flashed a old fashioned low tech beam of light at you 
> instead.  
>
> John K Clark
>

The statistical set on the occurrence of the particle will have its average 
or mean at the velocity of the wave. The appearance of the particle on the 
other side of the barrier is no different than finding there is a 
stochasticity to the appearance of the particle at points in free space. 
The only difference is that the exponential decay of probability through 
the tunneling barrier will mean it has less occurrences on the other side. 
Where the particle occurs in space is the result of a statistical 
distribution, and the reduction of the wave packet makes its occurrence at 
some point evident.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gamma Rays, Visible Light & The Electromagnetic Spectrum

2019-03-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell
It is one of those things about religious texts that make them so durable. 
The metaphorical and poetic nature of these are such that what ever the 
knowledge or circumstances there are in any age they can be interpreted 
accordingly. I doubt the author, assuming Mohammed is a single person, did 
not have anything involving the electromagnetic spectrum in mind. The 104th 
Psalm has been cited by some Christians with its reference to the Pleiades 
moving apart as knowledge by King David of astrophysics of new stellar 
clusters. Of course this is rather preposterous. 

LC

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:34:52 PM UTC-6, Samiya wrote:
>
> This might be of interest: 
>
> Gamma Rays, Visible Light & The Electromagnetic Spectrum 
> *Abstract*
> Exploring the erased sign of the night according to the ayaat of The Quran 
> and recent scientific discoveries. 
>
> *Full Text *
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/11/gamma-rays-visible-light.html
>  
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I see that my attempt to attach this gif animation failed too. Anyway I 
received my book *Geometry of Quantum States* by Bengtsson and Zyczckowski. 
This should keep me occupied for a while. I have strong ideas that quantum 
entanglements and gauge theories are related. 

LC


On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:47:10 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> A new upper bound on the time it takes for an electron to get through a 
>> barrier by Quantum Tunneling has been found. They discovered it takes 
>> less than 1.8 attoseconds, perhaps 1.8 attoseconds less. They say their 
>> experimental results are "in agreement with recent theoretical findings" 
>> and "present a compelling argument for instantaneous tunneling". One 
>> attosecond is to a second as a second is to 32 billion years.
>>
>> Quantum Tunneling <https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05445> 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> An instanton is a particle or quantum state in a tunneling barrier. The 
> plain vanilla case of a particle in a potential V and kinetic energy K = 
> p^2/2m determines a momentum that is
>
> p = sqrt{2m(E - V)},
>
> where if the particle energy E is less than the potential this is 
> imaginary valued. The wave function for a plane wave e^{ikx} has the phase 
> ikx for k = 2πp/h, h = Planck's constant, is then real and the total phase 
> ikx - iEt then means time is imaginary valued as well. 
>
> Time is complex valued, T = t + iτ in general, but in our theories it 
> assumes two values as t or it, in a Z_2 system on the argand plane. We 
> might ponder whether time is really T = te^{iθ} and is given by an U(1) 
> abelian group symmetry. This might require a very different idea on what we 
> mean by energy. It is the case that for an instanton time is the imaginary 
> part  in a Z_2 system with two states (t, 0) and (0, it). The imaginary 
> part is not time we measure with clocks and so tunneling has no meaning 
> with respect to that definition of time.
>
> Below is a numerical simulation I did of a soliton wave with an energy 
> potential interacting with a wave. If the interaction were zero the wave 
> would pass through unadulterated. This is a tunneling process.
>
> LC 
>
> [image: cosmic tunnel.gif]
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:47:10 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> A new upper bound on the time it takes for an electron to get through a 
>> barrier by Quantum Tunneling has been found. They discovered it takes 
>> less than 1.8 attoseconds, perhaps 1.8 attoseconds less. They say their 
>> experimental results are "in agreement with recent theoretical findings" 
>> and "present a compelling argument for instantaneous tunneling". One 
>> attosecond is to a second as a second is to 32 billion years.
>>
>> Quantum Tunneling <https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05445> 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> An instanton is a particle or quantum state in a tunneling barrier. The 
> plain vanilla case of a particle in a potential V and kinetic energy K = 
> p^2/2m determines a momentum that is
>
> p = sqrt{2m(E - V)},
>
> where if the particle energy E is less than the potential this is 
> imaginary valued. The wave function for a plane wave e^{ikx} has the phase 
> ikx for k = 2πp/h, h = Planck's constant, is then real and the total phase 
> ikx - iEt then means time is imaginary valued as well. 
>
> Time is complex valued, T = t + iτ in general, but in our theories it 
> assumes two values as t or it, in a Z_2 system on the argand plane. We 
> might ponder whether time is really T = te^{iθ} and is given by an U(1) 
> abelian group symmetry. This might require a very different idea on what we 
> mean by energy. It is the case that for an instanton time is the imaginary 
> part  in a Z_2 system with two states (t, 0) and (0, it). The imaginary 
> part is not time we measure with clocks and so tunneling has no meaning 
> with respect to that definition of time.
>
> Below is a numerical simulation I did of a soliton wave with an energy 
> potential interacting with a wave. If the interaction were zero the wave 
> would pass through unadulterated. This is a tunneling process.
>
> LC 
>

Dang the gif movie does not work. I have attached it.

LC
 

> [image: cosmic tunnel.gif]
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:47:10 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> A new upper bound on the time it takes for an electron to get through a 
> barrier by Quantum Tunneling has been found. They discovered it takes 
> less than 1.8 attoseconds, perhaps 1.8 attoseconds less. They say their 
> experimental results are "in agreement with recent theoretical findings" 
> and "present a compelling argument for instantaneous tunneling". One 
> attosecond is to a second as a second is to 32 billion years.
>
> Quantum Tunneling  
>
> John K Clark
>

An instanton is a particle or quantum state in a tunneling barrier. The 
plain vanilla case of a particle in a potential V and kinetic energy K = 
p^2/2m determines a momentum that is

p = sqrt{2m(E - V)},

where if the particle energy E is less than the potential this is imaginary 
valued. The wave function for a plane wave e^{ikx} has the phase ikx for k 
= 2πp/h, h = Planck's constant, is then real and the total phase ikx - iEt 
then means time is imaginary valued as well. 

Time is complex valued, T = t + iτ in general, but in our theories it 
assumes two values as t or it, in a Z_2 system on the argand plane. We 
might ponder whether time is really T = te^{iθ} and is given by an U(1) 
abelian group symmetry. This might require a very different idea on what we 
mean by energy. It is the case that for an instanton time is the imaginary 
part  in a Z_2 system with two states (t, 0) and (0, it). The imaginary 
part is not time we measure with clocks and so tunneling has no meaning 
with respect to that definition of time.

Below is a numerical simulation I did of a soliton wave with an energy 
potential interacting with a wave. If the interaction were zero the wave 
would pass through unadulterated. This is a tunneling process.

LC 

[image: cosmic tunnel.gif]


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR

2019-03-18 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 12:36:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the 
> > recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the 
> > cooled BB radiation of pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR 
> > tell us? AG 
>
> It tells us it was hot.  So those lines were smeared out by doppler 
> shifts due the motion of the particles. 
>
> Brent 
>

The spread in a spectral line with a broadening 1/f' - 1/f is red shifted 
as z(1/f' - 1/f) and so spread in frequency is zff'/(f - f'). For f' close 
to f this is large to begin with. Then with the z factor this amplifies 
things. The spread in frequencies spills over the gap.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What happens to old entanglements?

2019-03-14 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 6:16:36 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>> An entanglement can swap or a bipartite entanglement can enter into an 
>> entanglement with another state. So the entangled state c(|+>_1|->_2 + 
>> |->_1|+>_2) can couple with the system in a superposition c(|←> + |→>) 
>> to become, depending upon the interaction and conservation principles etc 
>> to be 
>>
>> c(|+>_1|->_2 + |->_1|+>_2) + c(|←> + |→>) → b(|+>_1|←> + |->_1|→>) + d(|->_2 
>> + |+>_2)
>>
>> which would be an entanglement swap. It might however form a tripartite 
>> entanglement
>>
>> c(|+>_1|->_2 + |->_1|+>_2) + c(|←> + |→>) → 
>>
>> b(|+>_1|->_2|←> + |->_1|+>_2|→>) + c(|->_1|+>_2|←> + |+>_1|->_2|→>).
>>
>> Here normalization factors can be easily calculated. For the first to 
>> happen there is a Hadamard gate on the two initial states. For the second 
>> there are CNOT type operations that creates an entanglement. CNOT gates 
>> demolish or generate entanglements. 
>>
>
> I do not really understand this. Particles 1 and 2 are entangled, say in 
> the singlet state as above. But the particles are well separated, so any 
> interaction with a third particle can affect only one of the two originals. 
> This seems to be what your first possibility shows -- the interaction of 
> one of the entangled pair with a third particle destroys the original 
> entanglement, but might result in the interacting particle becoming 
> entangled with the third particle. Except that your expansion seems to deny 
> the non-separability of the initial entangled state.
>

There is nothing about position in space. This is an entanglement swap, and 
this is similar to what happens with teleportation. The third state can be 
anywhere and with states 1 and 2 entangled there is no meaning to the idea 
particle 1 is here and particle 2 is there. What you describe otherwise is 
on track.
 

>
> The second possibility you list seems to deny the non-separability of the 
> initial state right from the start -- only one of the initial particles can 
> interact with the third particle, and that does not entangle the 
> non-interacting partner.
>


Again, with entangled states there really is no local meaning to particle 1 
and particle 2. 

LC
 

>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What happens to old entanglements?

2019-03-13 Thread Lawrence Crowell
An entanglement can swap or a bipartite entanglement can enter into an 
entanglement with another state. So the entangled state c(|+>_1|->_2 + 
|->_1|+>_2) can couple with the system in a superposition c(|←> + |→>) to 
become, depending upon the interaction and conservation principles etc to 
be 

c(|+>_1|->_2 + |->_1|+>_2) + c(|←> + |→>) → b(|+>_1|←> + |->_1|→>) + d(|->_2 
+ |+>_2)

which would be an entanglement swap. It might however form a tripartite 
entanglement

c(|+>_1|->_2 + |->_1|+>_2) + c(|←> + |→>) → 

b(|+>_1|->_2|←> + |->_1|+>_2|→>) + c(|->_1|+>_2|←> + |+>_1|->_2|→>).

Here normalization factors can be easily calculated. For the first to 
happen there is a Hadamard gate on the two initial states. For the second 
there are CNOT type operations that creates an entanglement. CNOT gates 
demolish or generate entanglements. 

LC

On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-6, Pierz wrote:
>
> A question for the physicists. I understand that entanglement is 
> monogamous, which is really just a way of saying that a system's 
> correlations with other systems cannot exceed +-1. Thus a maximally 
> entangled system has no room for entanglement with any other system. The 
> question is what happens to previous entanglements when a particle 
> interacts with another particle, such that it becomes maximally entangled 
> with it. Are prior entanglements completely obliterated, or are they just 
> obliterated FAPP, meaning that maximal entanglement is also only FAPP? ISTM 
> that some remote trace of entanglement - a kind of micro-entanglement - 
> must remain?
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Black holes and the information paradox

2019-03-13 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 4:38:24 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > The time it takes a black hole (BH) to quantum decay completely is 
>> proportional to the cube of the mass, which means the black hole has 
>> emitted half its mass in 7/8ths of its expected duration. This means 
>> that when a black hole is reduced to half of its original mass the 
>> bipartite entangled photons with the BH emitted a long time ago, for a 
>> solar mass black hole some 10^{67}years, are now entangled with not only 
>> the BH, but with newly emitted photons. This is a big problem. This is 
>> telling us there is a difficulty in making entanglement entropy fit with 
>> the Bekenstein bound and that bipartite entanglements are transformed into 
>> tripartite entanglements. This means quantum unitarity fails. This is not 
>> something people are willing to abandon so easily, so what AMPS [Almheiri, 
>> D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, "Black holes: complementarity or 
>> firewalls?". JHEP. $\bf 2$, (2013). arXiv:1207.3123] proposed was that 
>> instead of losing quantum unitarity maybe the equivalence principle of 
>> general relativity fails. This means the BH becomes a sort of naked 
>> singularity at the horizon, called the firewall, where anything that enters 
>> is just demolished or "burned up" as it would in the interior of a BH.
>>
>
> First of all thanks a lot for taking the time to write a very interesting 
> post. I'm trying to understand why the firewall is hot. I understand that 
> if I'm hovering just above the event horizon in a super powerful rocket 
> time would slow down so much I'd be able to observe the Black Hole evaporate
> , even if it took 10^ 67 years for a observer far from the Black Hole to 
> me it would only take a few seconds, and that means the Hawking Radiation 
> would burn me to a crisp. And I understand that until very recently 
> everybody said that if rather than hovering I was freely falling I wouldn't 
> even notice I've passed the Event Horizon, but if the Equivalence Principle 
> breaks down at that point perhaps I would notice it after all. Is that a 
> productive way to think about the Firewall? I've heard some say it's the 
> breaking of entanglement needed to avoid tripartite entanglements and 
> preserving 
> quantum unitarity that causes the Firewall, but the connection between 
> heat and broken entanglement is not intuitively obvious to me.  
>

What you describe is an amplification of the Hawking radiation by the Unruh 
effect. This can be thought of as due to the huge time dilation where the 
accelerated observer's clock is so slow relative to the outside that a few 
seconds can be billions of years out in asymptotic infinity. This is not 
the same as the firewall. The firewall is really an artificial 
construction. In order to save quantum unitarity one can think the 
equivalence principle is lost and nothing makes it across the horizon. This 
means there would be some way that nothing can enter or leave the black 
hole, which is often thought of as the firewall.
 

>  
>
>> > This provides me with the motivation at least to think that spacetime 
>> and quantum information are much the same.
>>
>
> I think if that could be shown to be less wrong than current ideas it 
> would be one of the greatest triumphs in the history of science.  
>

Verlinde and Verlinde in a paper in 2015 argued there must be an open world 
physics. I tend to agree. The way out as I see it is that if we have 
complete quantum gravitation the back reaction of the metric is then a 
quantum mechanical process that emits gravitons. The transfer from a 
bipartite entanglement to a tripartite entanglement then need not happen. 
There is simply an entanglement swap with gravitons that carry BMS 
symmetiries or charges.
 

>   
>
>> > It also relates to quantum error correction codes and the Hamming 
>> distance. If you have a library where books are not reshelved regularly 
>> then when about half the books become irregularly stacked off their duly 
>> appointed shelves it becomes much harder the reshelve them. This is a limit 
>> on an error correction, and the Page time or firewall is related to this.
>>
>
> I can see how that might cause a big jump in entropy when the Black Hole 
> reaches the Page time, but the universe isn't old enough for any Black Hole 
> to have reached the Page time so I don't see the connection to a ultra hot 
> firewall. What causes the heat?
>
> John K Clark
>

The only way I can imagine a large black hole with a firewall is if the 
firewall is some extremal condition. For the Kerr solution the inner and 
outer ho

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-12 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 4:19:16 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *> in the biological world certain problems that are NP are figured out. 
>> This runs from ants finding the minimal distance for their trails or even 
>> protistans negotiating some space. Ants are good at approximately solving 
>> the traveling salesman problem, the classic NP algorithm.*
>
>
I read the post by Aaronson on his blog about this. It is the case that 
nature does find approximate solutions to NP problems in P time. The 
protein folding problem is another good example. The fact it is not perfect 
is seen with transmissible spongephore encephalies (TSEs) where 
polypeptides are misfolded in ways not appropriate. TSEs are running 
rampant in deer populations in the US, which might mean before long it is 
in cattle. With protein folding however the success rate is amazingly high, 
and where natural selections is at play. There are chaperon proteins that 
adjust the folding of proteins, and clearly evolution has honed in those 
that shape proteins in an optimal way. Again, this tends to go with the 
point I was making. Repeated trials and correction serve the role of closed 
timelike curves. Aaronson, Barvarian and Gueltrini wrote a paper 
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05507] on how closed timelike curves that 
interact with a Turing machine that is not closed timelike will solve NP in 
P. The closed timelike curves as paths in a path integral constructive and 
destructively interfere to give the optimal solution. More prosaically in 
our time a repeated effort will approximate this in the way an ensemble can 
approximate a quantum system.

LC


 

arXiv:1609.05507 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05507>  [pdf 
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05507>, ps <https://arxiv.org/ps/1609.05507>, 
other <https://arxiv.org/format/1609.05507>] 
 
quant-ph

Computability Theory of Closed Timelike Curves

Authors: Scott Aaronson 
<https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Aaronson%2C+S>, 
Mohammad 
Bavarian 
<https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Bavarian%2C+M>, 
Giulio 
Gueltrini 
<https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Gueltrini%2C+G>

Abstract: We ask, and answer, the question of what's computable by Turing 
machines equipped with time travel into the past: that is, closed timelike 
curves or CTCs (with no bound on their size). We focus on a model for CTCs 
due to Deutsch, which imposes a probabilistic consistency condition to 
avoid grandfather paradoxes. Our main result is that computers with CTCs 
can solve exactly the problems that are Tu… ▽ More

Submitted 18 September, 2016; originally announced September 2016.
 

>
> It's easy to solve the traveling salesman problem if the number of cities 
> involved is small, but I see no evidence that nature can in general solve 
> NP problems in polynomial time. Of course there are many claims to the 
> contrary so Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson decided to but the 
> matter to a simple experimental test, this is what he reported:
>
>
> *"taking two glass plates with pegs between them, and dipping the 
> resulting contraption into a tub of soapy water. The idea is that the soap 
> bubbles that form between the pegs should trace out the minimum Steiner 
> tree — that is, the minimum total length of line segments connecting the 
> pegs, where the segments can meet at points other than the pegs themselves. 
> Now, this is known to be an NP-hard optimization problem. So, it looks like 
> Nature is solving NP-hard problems in polynomial time!*
>
> *Long story short, I went to the hardware store, bought some glass plates, 
> liquid soap, etc., and found that, while Nature does often find a minimum 
> Steiner tree with 4 or 5 pegs, it tends to get stuck at local optima with 
> larger numbers of pegs. Indeed, often the soap bubbles settle down to 
> a configuration which is not even a tree (i.e. contains “cycles of soap”), 
> and thus provably can’t be optimal.*
>
> *The situation is similar for protein folding. Again, people have said 
> that Nature seems to be solving an NP-hard optimization problem in every 
> cell of your body, by letting the proteins fold into their minimum-energy 
> configurations. But there are two problems with this claim. The first 
> problem is that proteins, just like soap bubbles, sometimes get stuck in 
> suboptimal configurations — indeed, it’s believed that’s exactly what 
> happens with Mad Cow Disease. The second problem is that, to the 
> extent that proteins do usually fold into their optimal configurations, 
> there’s an obvious reason why they would: natural selection! If  there were 
> a protein that could only be folded by proving the Riemann Hypothesis, the 
> gene that coded fo

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

2019-03-12 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 8:04:57 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which 
>>> would then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein 
>>> bound. 
>>
>>
>>
>> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply 
>> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales 
>> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no 
>> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends 
>> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>>
>
> Points that I have made many times, here and elsewhere. No one is 
> listening, it would appear. Actually, though, Penrose has worked this out 
> for himself. See "Roads to Reality".
>
> Bruce 
>

I have of course read Penrose's *Roads to Reality*. Towards the end he 
makes a pitch for his R-process that he introduced in the 1980s and made a 
central feature of his *Emperor's New Mind*. The problem is that it is most 
likely a sort of semi-classical phenomenology or effective theory. It is a 
result of ignoring how spacetime and quantum fields transform by the same 
rules. Sure if you do that you will get the R-process, or the previous idea 
of the super $-matrix by Hawking. 

Quantum information is fundamentally unitless, and this as a result is 
probably the best quantity to focus on as fundamental. Issues of the Planck 
scale, mass units and even the scale invariant breaking of inflation are 
challenges, for if quantum information is unitless it should then be 
absolutely conformal. So questions are open. Penrose just throws in the 
towel and says this violation just happens. There is no proof against this, 
but in spite of Hossenfelder's admonition against invoking beauty I find 
the R-process to be less than elegant and if nature were fundamentally this 
way, rather than as some effective theory, it would be rather disappointing.

LC
 

>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Black holes and the information paradox

2019-03-12 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 7:43:54 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would 
>> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 
>
>
>
> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply 
> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales 
> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no 
> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends 
> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>
> John K Clark
>

Warning, this is a bit long, but I hope informative and interesting. John's 
question pertains to the Planck scale and Bekenstein bound. Really the 
issue of quantum information and the firewall is on scales considerably 
larger. I do address some conundrums with the Planck scale towards the end.

As with the analogue of the thermal cavity the entanglement of radiation 
emitted shifts from radiation entangled with the cavity or photon emitting 
hot atoms, to entanglement between photons. Photons previously emitted and 
entangled with atoms, then become entangled with subsequent photons emitted 
by these atoms. It is interesting how entanglement is really all around us, 
but it is mostly not controlled and is an aspect of thermodynamics. Anyway 
this occurrence happens at a time called the Page time, after Don Page who 
first identified this. As this happens when around half the photons are 
emitted, the same happens with black holes. When about half the mass of a 
black hole has been emitted as Hawking radiation about half of its initial 
mass. The time it takes a black hole (BH) to quantum decay completely is 
proportional to the cube of the mass, which means the black hole has 
emitted half its mass in 7/8ths of its expected duration.

This means that when a black hole is reduced to half of its original mass 
the bipartite entangled photons with the BH emitted a long time ago, for a 
solar mass black hole some 10^{67}years, are now entangled with not only 
the BH, but with newly emitted photons. This is a big problem. This is 
telling us there is a difficulty in making entanglement entropy fit with 
the Bekenstein bound and that bipartite entanglements are transformed into 
tripartite entanglements. This means quantum unitarity fails. This is not 
something people are willing to abandon so easily, so what AMPS [Almheiri, 
D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, "Black holes: complementarity or 
firewalls?". JHEP. $\bf 2$, (2013). arXiv:1207.3123] proposed was that 
instead of losing quantum unitarity maybe the equivalence principle of 
general relativity fails. This means the BH becomes a sort of naked 
singularity at the horizon, called the firewall, where anything that enters 
is just demolished or "burned up" as it would in the interior of a BH.

If quantum mechanics builds up spacetime as entanglements, or equivalently 
if spacetime is an emergent phenomenon of quantum mechanics (QM), then the 
unitarity of QM and the equivalence principle (EP) of general relativity 
(GR) may be either equivalent in some way or that they share a duality. If 
we think about it the Einstein field equation 

R_{μν} - ½ Rg_{μν} = (8πG/c^4)T_{μν}

Tells us that weak gravitation on the left side of the equal sign is equal 
to strongly interacting stuff on the right. In a quantum mechanical setting 
the left hand side is quantum mechanical at extreme energy or the UV, while 
the right hand side is all around us at low or moderate energy or the IR. 
There is then a duality between quantum gravitation at extreme energy vs 
quantum field theory at lower energy. 

The holographic principle of black holes indicates that any system that 
approaches a black hole becomes less localized as seen by an asymptotic 
observer. The optical lensing of spacetime spreads any wave function or for 
that matter a local field amplitude across the near horizon region. Quantum 
field theory with its assumptions of Wightman conditions to remove quantum 
nonlocality may no longer be applicable. These were imposed in part to 
remove nonlocal quantum physics, which in high energy is on a very small 
scale from the physics one observes with detectors on a larger scale. 

The best thing to come out of superstring theory is Maldecena's 
correspondence between the anti-de Sitter spacetime of dimension N with the 
conformal field theory on the boundary in N - 1 dimensions. This gives me a 
sense that superstring theory has maybe far less to do with TeV scale 
physics and a lot more to do with quantum cosmology. In effect this 
connects a global physics of cosmology in the bulk of an AdS spacetime with 
the local conformal field theory on the boundary with one dimension less. 
This is a quantum spacetime version of the Gauss-Bonnet 

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

2019-03-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 8:16:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
> inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
> run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
> reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>

The initial problem really amounts to the fact Hawking radiation is emitted 
by black holes as a semi-classical system. The black hole emits fields and 
particles that evolve according to unitary quantum mechanics, but the black 
hole adjusts in this calculation by a classical metric back reaction. This 
means the unitary evolution of this process is incomplete because some 
unitary evolution of quantum gravity states are not accounted for. There is 
then a whole set of vacua that can exist, such as Boulware vacua, and this 
statistical ensemble enters into the calculation. As a result a black hole 
that is built up from pure quantum states emits radiation out, think of 
this as a scattering process, in a statistical ensemble. This is equivalent 
to saying the information of a pure state has been lost.

This was overcome, at least in principle, with the holographic principle. 
The time dilation and transverse spreading of a string or quantum wave over 
the horizon of a black hole as observed by a distant observer means this 
information is not really lost, but this statistical ensemble results from 
a sort of coarse graining. The asymptotic observer witnesses quantum states 
red shift by the quanta of radiation they may emit, slow down and the 
process of observation is more difficult. Eventually all the observer 
detects are gravitational states, or the increase in gravity of the black 
hole. These are then the Planck mass or frequency modes of quantum 
gravitation. this was thought to overcome the problem of information loss, 
but then another problem arose.

The black hole information problem as it currently stands is a problem with 
entanglement. This is the firewall. The problem here is that when a black 
hole emits a quanta of radiation that quanta is entangled with the black 
hole. We can use the old heuristic of the particle and antiparticle pair, 
where one falls in and the other escapes or a negative energy photon enters 
and a positive energy escapes. This means Hawking radiation is entangled 
with the black hole. This entanglement is a bipartite entanglement with two 
sets of states. A thermal cavity does much the same in that a photon 
emitted is entangled with an atom that emitted it. Entanglement entropy 
then grows. However, with the thermal cavity after about half the energy is 
released more of the photons emitted are entangled with photons previously 
emitted. With the black hole since Hawking radiation is a vacuum process 
all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would 
then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 
It would be as if a cooling thermal cavity had entanglement entropy 
increase to a maximum when it is finally cooled off. 

So how to manage keeping the entanglement entropy of the black hole from 
growing? We need some way of sending that entanglement entropy out into the 
universe. So we then have Hawking radiation emitted later entangled with 
previously emitted Hawking radiation. That sounds fine, but since Hawking 
radiation is a vacuum process with the black hole we still must have 
entanglement with the black hole. The only difference is most of the 
entropy is removed to the outside universe. However, this means the old 
Hawking radiation emitted in a bipartite entanglement is now in tripartite 
entanglement. This means entanglement phase has been created ex nihilio, 
which is a quantum version of violating the classical law of conservation 
of phase space volume. This is called a violation of quantum monogamy.

Now to toot my own horn. I think I have a solution, or more like a recipe 
for a partial solution, to this problem. I just finished writing a rough 
draft of a paper on this. I will not go into this for it involves 
entanglement of quantum states with BMS symmetries in a nonlocal 
entanglement swap. It is a bit dense to go into here.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My son the mathematician

2019-03-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I have published a fair number of papers, and it is always nice to get them 
accepted. So this is his first and at a pretty young age too. 
Congratulations

LC

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:46:50 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>
> Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).
>
> Topology and its Applications 
> 
> Volume 254 
> , 1 
> March 2019, Pages 85-100
>
> Extending bonding functions in generalized inverse sequences
> Iztok Banič, 
>  
> SimonGoodwin and 
> 
> MichaelLockyer 
> 
>  
> 
>
> (he's the one in the middle)
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/7/2019 2:15 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This makes a lot of sense, for in the biological world certain problems 
> that are NP are figured out. This runs from ants finding the minimal 
> distance for their trails or even protistans negotiating some space. Ants 
> are good at approximately solving the traveling salesman problem, the 
> classic NP algorithm.
>
>
> Not really.  The 'ants' are just part of an algorithm that solves the 
> traveling salesman program, and they aren't accurate simulations of ants.  
> Real ants don't make tours of vertices and they don't go back and update 
> their pheromone trail.
>
> Brent
>

I suppose I am not sure what you mean here. The ants crawl all over the 
place and the trails with the largest pheremone density tend to be those 
that are a solution or near solution to the traveling salesman problem.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Mar 2019, at 11:47, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:49, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:58:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> Bringing Gödel into physics is treading on a mine field as it is. 
>>>> Believe me, most physicists react in horror at the mere suggestion of 
>>>> this. 
>>>> I have this suspicion however that quantum measurement is a a sort of 
>>>> Gödel 
>>>> self-reference with quantum information or qubits. This may, at least 
>>>> within how we describe quantum mechanics if it should turn out to be not 
>>>> how the quantum world actually is, be one reason why we have this growing 
>>>> pantheon of quantum interpretations and no apparent way to decide which is 
>>>> definitively correct. 
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> I still think it's Darwin, not Gödel,  that has anything to do with  
>>> "quantum measurement".
>>>
>>> But physicists recoil in horror from that.
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>
>> Darwinian logic did put down the Aristotelian-Cartesian hierarchical 
>> structure with respect to biology. 
>>
>>
>> OK. Darwin use both mechanism (quasi-explicitly), and is understood 
>> usually in the materialist frame, but Darwin just do not address that 
>> question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aristotle and Plato are the two most known Hellenic philosophers because 
>> their systems of thought were wrapped into the New Testament Bible. Plato 
>> had this idea of there being a hierarchy of being, which was taken up by St 
>> Paul, carried further by Augustine, Aquinas and eventually encoded by 
>> Descartes. Descartes had this hierarchy of structure over function, design 
>> over material form etc, which was carried into science during the 17th and 
>> 18th century. In some ways Newtonian mechanics was seen as a confirmation 
>> of Descartes' metaphysics.
>>
>>
>> That is true. Today we know that Newtonian Mechanics is highly not 
>> computable. But Newton saw that, and indeed, distrusted his Mechanics, and 
>> saw it as an approximation. 
>>
>>
>>
> I would say classical mechanics is NP computable.
>
>
>
> In classical mechanics, the three body problem is Turing universal, I 
> think. No doubt for for the many body problem as the billiard board 
> computer illustrates.
>
> Any theorem complete for arbitrary finite Newtonian mechanical system will 
> be Turing complete, and thus essentially undecidable (in the sense of 
> Tarski: it means that all its effective consistent extensions are 
> undecidable as well). Turing universal = partial computable (not total 
> computable).
>
>
>
I think chaotic dynamics is a case of NP. The sensitive dependence on 
initial conditions means the Turing machine will take exponential 
space/time 2^N to compute the system N iterations into the future. This can 
then only in general be computed on a nondeterministic TM, or the algorithm 
is NP. There are a whole host of processes that are algorithmically NP, 
such as the fermionic sign problem. That is a big bugger of a problem.

As I have maybe indicated the de Sitter spacetime is in effect the single 
hyperboloid that covers the cones. The anti-de Sitter spacetimes are the 
two hyperboloids inside the cones. For this reason the dS is timelike or 
with topology RxS^n for R = reals for time and S^n space. The AdS contained 
in the cones as a signature flip with topology S^1xR^n, so time globally is 
in loops. The two meet at "infinity" on the cones, which in relativity we 
call scri^{±∞}. So in some sense we can think of the AdS and dS as 
transformable into each other. They are connected at the conformal boundary 
of the AdS, so the physical content of the two are identical. They are to 
get further into this related by a system similar to the momentum cone 
condition for the Haldane chain in solid state physics. They are connected 
at a holographic screen. So for AdS_5 a junction condition on a holographic 
screen inside AdS_5 will be AdS_4 if the ΔG_{ab} < 0 and dS_4 
if ΔG_{ab} ≥ 0. We are in this scheme in a dS_4.

Now here is where algorithms get into the picture. The AdS_5 has closed 
timelike curves, and so algorithms that are NP can be run in P. Aaronson 
has a paper in this. So the comp

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:49, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:58:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Bringing Gödel into physics is treading on a mine field as it is. Believe 
>>> me, most physicists react in horror at the mere suggestion of this. I have 
>>> this suspicion however that quantum measurement is a a sort of Gödel 
>>> self-reference with quantum information or qubits. This may, at least 
>>> within how we describe quantum mechanics if it should turn out to be not 
>>> how the quantum world actually is, be one reason why we have this growing 
>>> pantheon of quantum interpretations and no apparent way to decide which is 
>>> definitively correct. 
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>  
>> I still think it's Darwin, not Gödel,  that has anything to do with  
>> "quantum measurement".
>>
>> But physicists recoil in horror from that.
>>
>> - pt
>>
>
> Darwinian logic did put down the Aristotelian-Cartesian hierarchical 
> structure with respect to biology. 
>
>
> OK. Darwin use both mechanism (quasi-explicitly), and is understood 
> usually in the materialist frame, but Darwin just do not address that 
> question.
>
>
>
> Aristotle and Plato are the two most known Hellenic philosophers because 
> their systems of thought were wrapped into the New Testament Bible. Plato 
> had this idea of there being a hierarchy of being, which was taken up by St 
> Paul, carried further by Augustine, Aquinas and eventually encoded by 
> Descartes. Descartes had this hierarchy of structure over function, design 
> over material form etc, which was carried into science during the 17th and 
> 18th century. In some ways Newtonian mechanics was seen as a confirmation 
> of Descartes' metaphysics.
>
>
> That is true. Today we know that Newtonian Mechanics is highly not 
> computable. But Newton saw that, and indeed, distrusted his Mechanics, and 
> saw it as an approximation. 
>
>
>
I would say classical mechanics is NP computable. The problems of chaos are 
similar to to NP problems in that for a Turing machine that computes P 
these problems are exponential in space and time. Chaos is of that nature, 
but it is convergent. One can compute for some finite time the evolution of 
complex systems.
 

>
> Darwin struck a fatal blow to this with respect to biology.
>
>
> He struck the wrong view on Descartes and Mechanism, but his own Mechanism 
> is a foreseen of digital mechanism, and its confirmation by molecular 
> genetics, and the genetical code.
>
>
>
>
> Darwin did away with Aristotle and Descartes with biology. Gödel had an 
> impact on Plato, though it is not clear to me how. Gödel saw himself as a 
> Platonist and that his incompleteness theorem demonstrated how mathematical 
> truth is independent of knowing it. I tend to see this in terms of Turing 
> machines, which would say that certain problems are not computable and as 
> such no information can be derived. 
>
>
> … can be derived mechanically. But the truth can be guessed and experience 
> by non algorithmic, mechanical, means, even by a machine. Gödel’s theorem 
> is already proved by machine, which can even prove their own Gödel’s 
> theorem, and enforces them to be mystical, that is, to believe that there 
> is something more than their own consciousness.
>
>
>
Gödel’s theorem is proven in a computable manner, and so is an algorithm of 
sorts. My point though is that physical systems are in a sense mechanical 
and as such involve a mathematical system that describes how the state of a 
system, or equivalently a'la Born rule how an observable changes, evolves 
in time. So mechanism is an algorithmic process as we describe it.
 

>
> Whether there is a self-referential truth that is not enumerated is less 
> important. The real number line has a continuum of elements and there is 
> not enough information, even if that is infinite, to encode it all. We 
> might say in some sense that these numbers exist as if being in Plato's 
> cave we can imagine the existence of things by looking at shadows.
>
>
>
> Yes. For a set-theoretical realist, there are aleph_0 computable 
> functions, and thus 2^aleph_0 non computable functions.
>
> Now, in many toposes, all functions are computable, and all real-functions 
> are continuous. That is the case for the effective topos of Highland, based 
> on Kleene’s notion of realisability. Mechanism ask for arithmetical 
> realism, just to define what is a m

Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

2019-03-04 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:28:01 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:23 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > There are numbers that have no description in a practical sense. The 
>> numbers 10^{10^{10^{10}}} and 10^{10^{10^{10^{10 have a vast number of 
>> numbers that have no description with any information theoretic sense.
>>
>
> The 8000th Busy Beaver Number can be named but not calculated even 
> theoretically, but most Real Numbers can't even be uniquely named with 
> ASCII characters, not even with an infinite number of them.   
>
> John K Clark
>

There exists an uncountably infinite number of reals in the interval (0, 
1), and they exhaust all possible information theoretic description. Some 
mathematicians have argued this means they do not in some ways exist. Most 
mathematicians disagree with that by arguing computational tractability is 
not equivalent to mathematical existence. 

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-03 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:58:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Bringing Gödel into physics is treading on a mine field as it is. Believe 
>> me, most physicists react in horror at the mere suggestion of this. I have 
>> this suspicion however that quantum measurement is a a sort of Gödel 
>> self-reference with quantum information or qubits. This may, at least 
>> within how we describe quantum mechanics if it should turn out to be not 
>> how the quantum world actually is, be one reason why we have this growing 
>> pantheon of quantum interpretations and no apparent way to decide which is 
>> definitively correct. 
>>  
>>
>
>  
> I still think it's Darwin, not Gödel,  that has anything to do with  
> "quantum measurement".
>
> But physicists recoil in horror from that.
>
> - pt
>

Darwinian logic did put down the Aristotelian-Cartesian hierarchical 
structure with respect to biology. Aristotle and Plato are the two most 
known Hellenic philosophers because their systems of thought were wrapped 
into the New Testament Bible. Plato had this idea of there being a 
hierarchy of being, which was taken up by St Paul, carried further by 
Augustine, Aquinas and eventually encoded by Descartes. Descartes had this 
hierarchy of structure over function, design over material form etc, which 
was carried into science during the 17th and 18th century. In some ways 
Newtonian mechanics was seen as a confirmation of Descartes' metaphysics. 
Darwin struck a fatal blow to this with respect to biology.

Darwin did away with Aristotle and Descartes with biology. Gödel had an 
impact on Plato, though it is not clear to me how. Gödel saw himself as a 
Platonist and that his incompleteness theorem demonstrated how mathematical 
truth is independent of knowing it. I tend to see this in terms of Turing 
machines, which would say that certain problems are not computable and as 
such no information can be derived. Whether there is a self-referential 
truth that is not enumerated is less important. The real number line has a 
continuum of elements and there is not enough information, even if that is 
infinite, to encode it all. We might say in some sense that these numbers 
exist as if being in Plato's cave we can imagine the existence of things by 
looking at shadows.

Kant proposed a metaphysics that is somewhat parallel to quantum mechanics. 
The noumena of what "actually is," that Bohm insisted we could come to 
really know, is the unknown of QM. We probably can't know if the quanta is 
epistemic or ontic. The phenomena are the measurements and predictions. 
This has a certain Platonic character to it, but within the physical 
domain. The noumena are similar to Plato's pure forms and the phenomena are 
similar to the physical forms. The employment of Gödel with physics might 
be compared to shifting from Plato to Kant. However, if quantum 
interpretations are Gödel self-referential physical axioms of an auxiliary 
nature we are not left with any knowledge of what might be called a 
noumena. What we face is either the fact that decoherence and the outcome 
of a quantum event occurs for no reason at all, where quantum 
interpretations are fantasies of sorts, or that quantum mechanics is 
embedded in some physical axiomatic system of greater power. 

A Darwinian viewpoint on physics is worth keeping in the back of one's 
head. The superstring paradigm might be the endpoint of the idea there is 
some axiomatic scheme behind physical existence. It would be similar to 
Darwin, in that Darwin ended the hierarchical order of life with lower 
animals "down there" and us humans at the top "up there" as the pinnacle of 
creation by rules given by what we call God. Smolin and other have proposed 
Darwinian ideas, but so far nothing has come of them.  Maybe physicists 
should keep working.

The Darwinian order to the world relies upon an open world system. A closed 
world is one where entropy does reach maximum and at equilibrium there is 
just death. The creationists love this argument, which is true in a closed 
world, but not open. We may then compare it to the structure of cream in 
coffee, which has become a bit of a design game these days. If you pour 
cream in black coffee it makes all sorts of swirls and structures, but as 
you keep swirling the coffee that becomes a brown mix and equilibrium is 
struck. So the analogue for an open system would be where both the coffee 
and cream are constantly replenished so there is always black coffee and 
there is always primarily cream whirls. It is an open system. It is not one 
that reaches maximum entropy. Well we know the universe started at a very 
low entropy. We know of no particular reason why there could not have been 
lots of black holes generated so the in

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-03 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I wrote quite a bit here in green color.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 6:23:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Mar 2019, at 19:55, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 8:49:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 Mar 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2019, at 12:39, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:44:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 15:24, Lawrence Crowell  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but 
>>>>> he seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some 
>>>>> ways 
>>>>> that is what Born said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space 
>>>>> with vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. 
>>>>> For an observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
>>>>> observable is
>>>>>
>>>>>  sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability 
>>>>> for the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, 
>>>>> but 
>>>>> the problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues 
>>>>> of an operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I understand this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact this has some subtle issues with degeneracies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way 
>>>>> to assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is close. Gleason's theorem tells us that probabilities are a 
>>>> consequence of certain measurements. So for a basis Q = {q_n} then in a 
>>>> span in Q = P{q_n}, for P a projection operator that a measure μ(Q} is 
>>>> given by a trace over projection operators. This is close, but it does not 
>>>> address the issue of eigenvalues of an operator or observable. Gleason 
>>>> tried to make this work for operators, but was ultimately not able to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It should work for the projection operator, that this is the 
>>>> yes-no-experiment, but that extends to the other measurement, by reducing 
>>>> (as usual) the question “what is the value of A” into the (many) question 
>>>> “does A measurement belong to this interval” … Gleason’s theorem assures 
>>>> that the measure is unique (on the subspaces of H with dim bigger or equal 
>>>> to 3), so the Born rule should be determined, at least in non degenerate 
>>>> case (but also in the degenerate case when the degeneracy is due to 
>>>> tracing 
>>>> out a subsystem from a bigger system. I will verify later as my mind 
>>>> belongs more to the combinator and applicative algebra that QM for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many years ago I had an idea that since the trace of a density matrix 
>>>> may be thought of as constructed from projection operators with tr(ρ_n) = 
>>>> sum_n |c_n|^2P_n, that observables that commute with the density matrix 
>>>> might have a derived Born rule following Gleason. Further, maybe operators 
>>>> that do not commute then have some dual property that still upholds Born 
>>>> rule. I was not able to make this work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will think about this. Normally the measure is determine by the 
>>>> “right" quantum logic, and the right quantum logic is determined by the 
>>>> any 
>>>> “provability” box accompanied by consistency condition (like []p & p, []p 
>>>> & 
>>>&g

Re: A Program to Compute Gödel-Löb Fixpoints

2019-03-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I guess I am not sure what a Gödel-Löb fixed point is. Is this somehow 
analogous to a Brouwer fixed points in maps or diffeomorphisms of spaces?

I read Rucker's *Infinity and the Mind* last spring, after having read it 
many years ago. I could tell he had a penchant for various mystical ideas. 
This tends blog entry of his suggests he has ideas similar to what Gödel 
thought, and which I think were a part of leading  him into paranoid 
delusions. When I clicked on this for some reason I thought this was about 
monoids, and was a bit disappointed to see it is more philosophical. 
However, I think the Kant noumena is not really directly knowable, and I 
think from quantum mechanics we can't know this as either purely epistemic 
or ontic. I am not sure how ideas of mind fit into this.

LC

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 3:26:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> *A Program to Compute Gödel-Löb Fixpoints*
> Melvin Fitting [ http://melvinfitting.org/ ]
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285841645_A_program_to_compute_Godel-Lob_fixpoints
>  
> 
>
>
> *A loose motivation for much of Melvin Fitting's work can be formulated 
> succinctly as follows. There are many logics. Our principles of reasoning 
> vary with context and subject matter. Multiplicity is one of the glories of 
> modern formal logic. The common thread tying logics together is a concern 
> for what can be said (syntax), what that means (semantics), and 
> relationships between the two. A philosophical position that can be 
> embodied in a formal logic has been shown to be coherent, not correct. 
> Logic is a tool, not a master, but it is an enjoyable tool to use.*
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Fitting ]
>
>
> also (a bit offbeat):
>
> “Simply Gödel,” Phenomenology, and Monads
> Rudy Rucker
> http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2017/03/17/godel-phenomonology-and-monads/
>
> - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

2019-03-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 4:13:00 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/1/2019 1:44 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> I think the interesting question is what does the function on natural 
> numbers 
>
>   n → shortestDescriptionOf(n)/n
>
> look like.
>
>
> That's not even a function since ShortestDescriptionOf (n) depends on the 
> notation for the description and different notations can produce the same 
> value.  Theorems about Kolmogorov complexity always depend on behavior in 
> the limit of large n, so that the fixed preamble can be be ignored.
>
> Brent
>

Not only that this amounts to trying to find the most efficient data 
compression algorithm for arithmetic. This is not possible in a manner 
similar to the Turing halting problem. 

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: HoTT: The programing language of space

2019-03-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 3:19:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 3:09:23 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The question is whether HoTT is also the language of entanglement.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>  
>
> All "entanglement" is is a path integral [ 
> https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/path+integral ] so it should.
>
>
> - pt
>

I think if there is a connection here it is with the Polyakov path 
integral, which quotients out diffeomorphisms of the group symmetry.

LC
 

>
>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:15:34 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> HoTT (Homotopy Type Theory) is re-expressed here as a programming 
>>> language to encode mathematics.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ 
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326645835_HoTT_The_Language_of_Space
>>>  
>>> ] 
>>>
>>> [ https://github.com/groupoid/cafe) github.com/groupoid/cafe ]
>>>
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>> Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) is the most advanced programming language in 
>>> the domain of intersection of several theories: algebraic topology, 
>>> homological algebra, higher category theory, mathematical logic, and 
>>> theoretical computer science. That is why it can be considered as a 
>>> language of space, as it can encode any existent mathematics.
>>>
>>> Speaker: Maxim Sokhatsky is an author of Privat24 deposits, 20 years of 
>>> working experience as a programmer, one of the 30 top-commiters in Ukraine 
>>> in Open Source, author of N2O, the best Erlang Web Framework, CEO of Synrc 
>>> Research Center, author of several embedded operating system runtimes and 
>>> production programming languages. Maxim is familiar with any programming 
>>> language on the planet and had seen sources of all operating systems.
>>>
>>> Now Maxim is doing his Ph.D. research (the second year of education) in 
>>> HoTT, trying to encode as much mathematics in the programming language as 
>>> possible along the way.
>>>
>>> During this lecture, Maxim will try to smoothly guide you from the 
>>> programming perspective to the pure space of mathematics and will show the 
>>> evolution of mathematical provers from AUTOMATH to the family of Cubical 
>>> Type Checkers. Also, this lecture is considered as a general introduction 
>>> to HoTT course Maxim is preparing for his friends.
>>>
>>> cf. [ http://groupoid.space) groupoid.space ]
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

2019-03-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
There are numbers that have no description in a practical sense. The 
numbers 10^{10^{10^{10}}} and 10^{10^{10^{10^{10 have a vast number of 
numbers that have no description with any information theoretic sense. This 
is even if all the particles in the some 10^{500}cosmologies in the 
multiverse or with 12-dimensions some 10^{10100} cosmos's were employed as 
information bits. It is also not hard to construct a Berry paradox for a 
vast number of numbers here. 

LC

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> via
> https://twitter.com/JDHamkins/status/1100090709527408640
>
> Joel David Hamkins   @JDHamkins
>
> *Must there be numbers we cannot describe or define? Definability in 
> mathematics and the Math Tea argument*
> Pure Mathematics Research Seminar at the University of East Anglia in 
> Norwich on Monday, 25 February, 2019.
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> *An old argument, heard perhaps at a good math tea, proceeds: “there must 
> be some real numbers that we can neither describe nor define, since there 
> are uncountably many real numbers, but only countably many definitions.” 
> Does it withstand scrutiny? In this talk, I will discuss the phenomenon of 
> pointwise definable structures in mathematics, structures in which every 
> object has a property that only it exhibits. A mathematical structure is 
> Leibnizian, in contrast, if any pair of distinct objects in it exhibit 
> different properties. Is there a Leibnizian structure with no definable 
> elements? Must indiscernible elements in a mathematical structure be 
> automorphic images of one another? We shall discuss many elementary yet 
> interesting examples, eventually working up to the proof that every 
> countable model of set theory has a pointwise definable extension, in which 
> every mathematical object is definable.*
>
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/must-there-be-number-we-cannot-define-norwich-february-2019/
>
> Lecture notes:
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Must-every-number-be-definable_-Norwich-Feb-2019.pdf
>
>
> - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: HoTT: The programing language of space

2019-03-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
The question is whether HoTT is also the language of entanglement.

LC

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:15:34 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> HoTT (Homotopy Type Theory) is re-expressed here as a programming language 
> to encode mathematics.
>
>
> [ 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326645835_HoTT_The_Language_of_Space 
> ] 
>
> [ https://github.com/groupoid/cafe) github.com/groupoid/cafe ]
>
>
> Abstract
> Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) is the most advanced programming language in 
> the domain of intersection of several theories: algebraic topology, 
> homological algebra, higher category theory, mathematical logic, and 
> theoretical computer science. That is why it can be considered as a 
> language of space, as it can encode any existent mathematics.
>
> Speaker: Maxim Sokhatsky is an author of Privat24 deposits, 20 years of 
> working experience as a programmer, one of the 30 top-commiters in Ukraine 
> in Open Source, author of N2O, the best Erlang Web Framework, CEO of Synrc 
> Research Center, author of several embedded operating system runtimes and 
> production programming languages. Maxim is familiar with any programming 
> language on the planet and had seen sources of all operating systems.
>
> Now Maxim is doing his Ph.D. research (the second year of education) in 
> HoTT, trying to encode as much mathematics in the programming language as 
> possible along the way.
>
> During this lecture, Maxim will try to smoothly guide you from the 
> programming perspective to the pure space of mathematics and will show the 
> evolution of mathematical provers from AUTOMATH to the family of Cubical 
> Type Checkers. Also, this lecture is considered as a general introduction 
> to HoTT course Maxim is preparing for his friends.
>
> cf. [ http://groupoid.space) groupoid.space ]
>
> - pt
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-03-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 8:49:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Mar 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2019, at 12:39, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:44:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 15:24, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
>>>> seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
>>>> that is what Born said.
>>>>
>>>> The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
>>>> vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
>>>> observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
>>>> observable is
>>>>
>>>>  sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.
>>>>
>>>> So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability 
>>>> for the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, 
>>>> but 
>>>> the problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues 
>>>> of an operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am not sure I understand this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact this has some subtle issues with degeneracies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way to 
>>>> assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is close. Gleason's theorem tells us that probabilities are a 
>>> consequence of certain measurements. So for a basis Q = {q_n} then in a 
>>> span in Q = P{q_n}, for P a projection operator that a measure μ(Q} is 
>>> given by a trace over projection operators. This is close, but it does not 
>>> address the issue of eigenvalues of an operator or observable. Gleason 
>>> tried to make this work for operators, but was ultimately not able to.
>>>
>>>
>>> It should work for the projection operator, that this is the 
>>> yes-no-experiment, but that extends to the other measurement, by reducing 
>>> (as usual) the question “what is the value of A” into the (many) question 
>>> “does A measurement belong to this interval” … Gleason’s theorem assures 
>>> that the measure is unique (on the subspaces of H with dim bigger or equal 
>>> to 3), so the Born rule should be determined, at least in non degenerate 
>>> case (but also in the degenerate case when the degeneracy is due to tracing 
>>> out a subsystem from a bigger system. I will verify later as my mind 
>>> belongs more to the combinator and applicative algebra that QM for now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many years ago I had an idea that since the trace of a density matrix 
>>> may be thought of as constructed from projection operators with tr(ρ_n) = 
>>> sum_n |c_n|^2P_n, that observables that commute with the density matrix 
>>> might have a derived Born rule following Gleason. Further, maybe operators 
>>> that do not commute then have some dual property that still upholds Born 
>>> rule. I was not able to make this work.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will think about this. Normally the measure is determine by the 
>>> “right" quantum logic, and the right quantum logic is determined by the any 
>>> “provability” box accompanied by consistency condition (like []p & p, []p & 
>>> <>t, …).  The main difference to be expected, is that eventually we get a 
>>> “quantum credibility measure”, not really a probability. It is like 
>>> probability, except that credibility is between 0 and infinity (not 0 and 
>>> 1).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>> I think I ran into the issue of why Gleason's theorem does not capture 
>> the Born rule. Not all operators are commutative with the density matrix. 
>> So if you construct the diagonal of the density matrix, or its trace 
>> elements, with projector operators and off diagonal elem

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-28 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2019, at 12:39, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:44:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 15:24, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
>>> seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
>>> that is what Born said.
>>>
>>> The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
>>> vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
>>> observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
>>> observable is
>>>
>>>  sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.
>>>
>>> So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability 
>>> for the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, but 
>>> the problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues 
>>> of an operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. 
>>>
>>>
>> I am not sure I understand this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact this has some subtle issues with degeneracies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way to 
>>> assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> It is close. Gleason's theorem tells us that probabilities are a 
>> consequence of certain measurements. So for a basis Q = {q_n} then in a 
>> span in Q = P{q_n}, for P a projection operator that a measure μ(Q} is 
>> given by a trace over projection operators. This is close, but it does not 
>> address the issue of eigenvalues of an operator or observable. Gleason 
>> tried to make this work for operators, but was ultimately not able to.
>>
>>
>> It should work for the projection operator, that this is the 
>> yes-no-experiment, but that extends to the other measurement, by reducing 
>> (as usual) the question “what is the value of A” into the (many) question 
>> “does A measurement belong to this interval” … Gleason’s theorem assures 
>> that the measure is unique (on the subspaces of H with dim bigger or equal 
>> to 3), so the Born rule should be determined, at least in non degenerate 
>> case (but also in the degenerate case when the degeneracy is due to tracing 
>> out a subsystem from a bigger system. I will verify later as my mind 
>> belongs more to the combinator and applicative algebra that QM for now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Many years ago I had an idea that since the trace of a density matrix may 
>> be thought of as constructed from projection operators with tr(ρ_n) = sum_n 
>> |c_n|^2P_n, that observables that commute with the density matrix might 
>> have a derived Born rule following Gleason. Further, maybe operators that 
>> do not commute then have some dual property that still upholds Born rule. I 
>> was not able to make this work.
>>
>>
>> I will think about this. Normally the measure is determine by the “right" 
>> quantum logic, and the right quantum logic is determined by the any 
>> “provability” box accompanied by consistency condition (like []p & p, []p & 
>> <>t, …).  The main difference to be expected, is that eventually we get a 
>> “quantum credibility measure”, not really a probability. It is like 
>> probability, except that credibility is between 0 and infinity (not 0 and 
>> 1).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> I think I ran into the issue of why Gleason's theorem does not capture the 
> Born rule. Not all operators are commutative with the density matrix. So if 
> you construct the diagonal of the density matrix, or its trace elements, 
> with projector operators and off diagonal elements with left and right 
> acting projectors (left acting hit bra vectors and right acting hit ket 
> vectors) the problem is many operators are non-commutative. In particular 
> the usual situation is for the Hamiltonian to have nontrivial commutation 
> with the density matrix.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that Gleason theorem takes this into account. It only means 
> that the probabilities does not make the same partition of the multiverse, 
> but that is not a problem for someone who use physics to see if it co

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:44:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2019, at 15:24, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
>> seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
>> that is what Born said.
>>
>> The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
>> vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
>> observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
>> observable is
>>
>>  sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.
>>
>> So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability for 
>> the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, but the 
>> problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues of an 
>> operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. 
>>
>>
> I am not sure I understand this.
>
>
>
>
> In fact this has some subtle issues with degeneracies.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way to 
>> assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> It is close. Gleason's theorem tells us that probabilities are a 
> consequence of certain measurements. So for a basis Q = {q_n} then in a 
> span in Q = P{q_n}, for P a projection operator that a measure μ(Q} is 
> given by a trace over projection operators. This is close, but it does not 
> address the issue of eigenvalues of an operator or observable. Gleason 
> tried to make this work for operators, but was ultimately not able to.
>
>
> It should work for the projection operator, that this is the 
> yes-no-experiment, but that extends to the other measurement, by reducing 
> (as usual) the question “what is the value of A” into the (many) question 
> “does A measurement belong to this interval” … Gleason’s theorem assures 
> that the measure is unique (on the subspaces of H with dim bigger or equal 
> to 3), so the Born rule should be determined, at least in non degenerate 
> case (but also in the degenerate case when the degeneracy is due to tracing 
> out a subsystem from a bigger system. I will verify later as my mind 
> belongs more to the combinator and applicative algebra that QM for now.
>
>
>
>
> Many years ago I had an idea that since the trace of a density matrix may 
> be thought of as constructed from projection operators with tr(ρ_n) = sum_n 
> |c_n|^2P_n, that observables that commute with the density matrix might 
> have a derived Born rule following Gleason. Further, maybe operators that 
> do not commute then have some dual property that still upholds Born rule. I 
> was not able to make this work.
>
>
> I will think about this. Normally the measure is determine by the “right" 
> quantum logic, and the right quantum logic is determined by the any 
> “provability” box accompanied by consistency condition (like []p & p, []p & 
> <>t, …).  The main difference to be expected, is that eventually we get a 
> “quantum credibility measure”, not really a probability. It is like 
> probability, except that credibility is between 0 and infinity (not 0 and 
> 1).
>
> Bruno
>
>
I think I ran into the issue of why Gleason's theorem does not capture the 
Born rule. Not all operators are commutative with the density matrix. So if 
you construct the diagonal of the density matrix, or its trace elements, 
with projector operators and off diagonal elements with left and right 
acting projectors (left acting hit bra vectors and right acting hit ket 
vectors) the problem is many operators are non-commutative. In particular 
the usual situation is for the Hamiltonian to have nontrivial commutation 
with the density matrix.

LC
 

>
>
> LC
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 5:31:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 6:41:00 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> *Even if gravitons are detected, and they account for "force" 
>>>> consistent with the other three forces, wouldn't there remain the task of 
>>>> changing the form of gravity to make it covariant? AG*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
>>>> particles and covariant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not 
>>> the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for 
>>> this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
>>> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Would that require tensors? AG*
>>>>
>>>>
>> General relativity is covariant, and curvature is expressed according to 
>> Riemann tensors. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *Thanks, but I think you missed the thrust of my question; namely, if a 
> theory using gravitons is independent of GR, since it would have to be 
> covariant, could that be done without tenors, or are tensors nevertheless 
> necessary.  AG*
>

Tensors transform homogeneously with the Lorentz group and are thus 
covariant. Yep you need tensors. 

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
> seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
> that is what Born said.
>
> The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
> vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
> observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
> observable is
>
>  sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.
>
> So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability for 
> the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, but the 
> problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues of an 
> operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. In fact this has 
> some subtle issues with degeneracies.
>
>
> Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way to 
> assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?
>
> Brent
>

It is close. Gleason's theorem tells us that probabilities are a 
consequence of certain measurements. So for a basis Q = {q_n} then in a 
span in Q = P{q_n}, for P a projection operator that a measure μ(Q} is 
given by a trace over projection operators. This is close, but it does not 
address the issue of eigenvalues of an operator or observable. Gleason 
tried to make this work for operators, but was ultimately not able to.

Many years ago I had an idea that since the trace of a density matrix may 
be thought of as constructed from projection operators with tr(ρ_n) = sum_n 
|c_n|^2P_n, that observables that commute with the density matrix might 
have a derived Born rule following Gleason. Further, maybe operators that 
do not commute then have some dual property that still upholds Born rule. I 
was not able to make this work.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>> *Even if gravitons are detected, and they account for "force" consistent 
>> with the other three forces, wouldn't there remain the task of changing the 
>> form of gravity to make it covariant? AG*
>>
>>
>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
>> particles and covariant.
>>
>
> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not the 
> mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for this 
> thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>
>>
>> *Would that require tensors? AG*
>>
>>
General relativity is covariant, and curvature is expressed according to 
Riemann tensors. 

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell
This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
that is what Born said.

The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
observable is

 sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.

So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability for 
the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, but the 
problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues of an 
operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. In fact this has 
some subtle issues with degeneracies.

LC

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some 
> of the physicists on here think about this research?
>
> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical 
> statistical phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it 
> is somehow unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with 
> nice garnish for dinner.
>
> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups 
> with some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, 
> except on vastly different scales of course and due to other different 
> factors, in the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of 
> gravitational inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their 
> grand voyages around the galactic core.
>
> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
>
> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and 
> the seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
>
> Here is the link to the article:
>
>
>
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine 
> 
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine 
>
> The new work promises to give researchers a better grip on the core 
> mystery of quantum mechanics.
>
> 
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-17 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 6:06:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> 1) Using the EP and the example of an accelerating elevator, it follows 
> that light takes a curved path in space (not space-time).  Wasn't this 
> known by virtue of Newtonian gravity?
>

Newton computes half the correct value by general relativity.
 

>
> 2) Assuming a geodesic is the shortest distance between two *spatial* 
> points on a curved surface, does it follow from the EP that free falling 
> bodies move on geodesics, and if if so how? 
>
>
It is an extremal distance, and because of the Lorentzian metric is is the 
maximal distance. This extremal principle derives the geodesic equation. 
This is a standard exercise in introductory courses on general relativity.
 

> 3) Concerning the above questions, how does "space-time" enter the picture 
> since it seems the questions can be asked without referencing space-time. 
>

It is because the global or flat theory is special relativity that pertains 
to local inertial frames.

LC
 

>
> TIA, 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: On Information Rockets...

2019-02-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I think this is somewhat confused. There is a possible connection here, but 
it is through quantum mechanics. Mariam Mirzakhani won the Fields Medal in 
mathematics for her work on the entropy of curves in hyperbolic spaces. In 
two dimensions this space is the spatial surface embedded in an anti-de 
Sitter spacetime AdS_3. These curves are arc that are for standard cases 
the geodesics in a Poincare disk. The Ryu-Takanagi theorem illustrates how 
these curves, or for AdS_n spacetimes with higher n such as AdS_5, bound 
causal regions that can be entangled in the AdS_5. These entanglement 
regions define an entanglement entropy with the RT formula. 

For a body moving in spacetime the standard idea of general relativity is 
the path followed is the extremal or maximal length in that spacetime. 
Because of the Lorentzian metric the minimal condition for action becomes a 
maximal condition. This insures the path a particle follows is the extremal 
path in a spacetime, which is particularly important if the spacetime is 
curved. The quantum entanglement analogue of this would be that a particle 
or quantum wave will evolve according to its maximal entanglement with 
spacetime. This has the implication that spacetime itself is built from the 
entanglement of fundamental quantum states or fields. Then in that case we 
could say the path a particle follows in spacetime is determined by the 
maximal quantum entropy that particle has with spacetime.

LC

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 11:46:45 AM UTC-6, Mindey I. wrote:
>
> So, we have just had a discussion[1] start on halfbakery on the similarity 
> between an object in gravitational field, and an "information object" in 
> the entropy field. In summary, we can think of information content as an 
> object, the state of which is function of mutation rate ("entropy field"), 
> and replication rates ("centrifugal force field"). That suggests, that we 
> may be on a collision course with an alien computational universe, and we 
> need a technological singularity to amplify our kind of randomness to 
> escape the pull of their entropic field (their kind of pseudo-randomness, 
> which to us appears as entropy or true randomness).
>
> I think this relates directly with the questions, that Wei Dai has posed 
> in the announcement post ( http://www.weidai.com/everything.html ), 
> asking why do we believe that both the past and the future are not 
> completely random, but the future is more random than the past.
>
> Any thoughts or input, regarding how our universe may be moving or 
> interacting with respect to other (computational) universes, would be very 
> interesting. Also, what would this inter-universe medium, that would allow 
> computational universes interact would be? Based on previous discussions, I 
> suppose it is obvious, that the 'Everthing" is one, and the origin of 
> 'Everything' may be out of 'Nothing', however, since there may be multiple 
> ways for that derivation to happen, the space of computational may be 
> hierarchical and not entirely void.
>
> [1] https://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Information_20Rocket
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of reality. 
It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in 
some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just 
greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but 
I think their mental landscape is smaller than that of a human. So 
somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some 
form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of 
awareness of their surroundings. 

Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being 
generates an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this 
world. It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being 
encodes a representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has 
some form of truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. It might 
serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so the being 
is able to take a risk. This may be extended in part to all sort of complex 
self-adaptive systems, in particular biological organisms. 

LC

On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Two recent books:
>
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 
>
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
> ago (Reber). 
>
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 
>
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
> around 560 million years ago. 
>
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
> years ago. [Thagard]
>
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>
> - pt
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

2019-01-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:03:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>
> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>
>
> - pt
>

This illustrates a problem with the epistemology of physics. It stems from 
Newton's laws, in particular the second law of motion F = ma. On the left 
hand side we have the dynamics in a force. We have on the right a physical 
quantity in the mass of a body as a scalar quantity. We then have the 
acceleration 

a = lim_{Δt → 0}Δ^2x/Δt^2 = d^2x/dt^2.

This then multiplies the physical scalar mass to give a dynamical, which 
means measurable, force that has a direction. We can then think of this as 
a strange equation that multiplies a physical quantity by a geometric 
quantity that then gives a dynamical force that is physical. Issac Newton 
wrote this according to a construction called fluxions, which in time gave 
was to the calculus based more on Leibniz and ultimately Weierstrass. Yet 
the early period was full of roiling controversy over what we meant by 
these infinitesimals and so forth. The geometric aspect of Newton's second 
law appeared to have a different meaning from what would be expected of 
something physical.

This confusion continues into general relativity. We might write the 
Einstein field equation as 

Geometric curvature = physical dynamics,

where Einstein was most enamored with the left hand side, calling it 
marble, while the right hand side he cited as wood. There is the mixing of 
categories in general relativity that is remarkably similar to Newtonian 
mechanics. The general theory of relativity is based on the equivalence 
principle, and this tells us that for a sufficiently local frame there is 
no experiment that can determine if the frame is global in free space or in 
a gravitational field. This gives the sort of calculus rule, small frames 
removes geometric information and thus dynamics, and the geometrodynamical 
theory is built from atlas-chart constructions on such infinitesimal frames.

General relativity gives geometry more of an active role. There may be 
gravitational waves, undulations of space that evolve in time, that we 
observe by the physical displacement of interferometer elements. We have in 
our minds these mental models of space and spacetime, but ultimately we 
have a category problem; space and spacetime while defined by clocks and 
rulers, is not in of itself something that has direct physics. 

We might then consider quantum gravitation. I think that spacetime is an 
emergent property of quantum entanglement. Given a group G for the 
symmetries of a quantum system or field, then in the Cartan decomposition G 
= H×K the subgroup H is G modulo the action of K so H = G/K, and for a 
quantum system this means the wave function is invariant with respect to 
some description. Such as for entangled spins, the entangled wave function 
has no description according to the spins. 

In general relativity dynamics can be thought of as what extremizes the 
action S = ∫d^4x sqrt(g)R, for R the Ricci curvature. Action and entropy 
share an equivalency under the euclideanized map t/ħ = 1/kT for t time and 
T temperature. We can also work this within complexity, and with quantum 
gravitation the importance is with entanglement entropy or complexity. This 
means that quantum gravitation is built from quantum states, which as we 
all should be aware are not ontological entities in a standard sense. We 
still have physics, in particular the aspect of physics that conveys 
geometric or spatial relationship content, that is not ontologically solid. 
This appears to be a fundamental aspect of physics, or at least physics as 
we can understand.

For this reason I think ideas that have spacetime composed of little 
elements that are physical are not likely correct. This has been a long 
standing critique I have of quantum gravitation theories outside of string 
theory. This is not to say I think string theory has everything sewed up. 
However, these various ideas such as LQG, DT and SD etc seem to have 
category conflicts.

LC
 

>
>
> Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)
>  
>
> *or* Everything Histories (EH)
>  
>
>
> 
>  
>
> *Perhaps… we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” 
> he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find 
> methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the 
> present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in 
> empty space.*
> — Albert Einstein
>  
>
> In a HOPE-ful ontology, histories  are 
> the fundamental constituents of the universe. They replace spacetime 
> 

Re: Planck Length

2019-01-27 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 4:54:58 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 2:25:59 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 6:06:09 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:48:38 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 12:57:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point is that in physics what might be called a halting 
>>>>>>>>> condition is an attractor point or limit cycle. Equilibrium is the 
>>>>>>>>> terminal 
>>>>>>>>> point in the evolution of some system, say thinking according to 
>>>>>>>>> Landauer's 
>>>>>>>>> original paper on thermodynamics and information. The quantum field 
>>>>>>>>> theory 
>>>>>>>>> of black holes has no equilibrium condition. Now if the black hole 
>>>>>>>>> runs 
>>>>>>>>> away with Hawking radiation it will “explode” in a burst of gamma 
>>>>>>>>> rays and 
>>>>>>>>> other quanta. A Turing machine that does not halt can also be said to 
>>>>>>>>> burn 
>>>>>>>>> itself out, and if anyone has programmed assembler there were loops 
>>>>>>>>> you 
>>>>>>>>> could put a machine into that might do damage. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for being slow on this. I forgot to get flu shots this year 
>>>>>>>>> and I have been hit with a real doozy of a flu. Since Sunday night 
>>>>>>>>> until 
>>>>>>>>> yesterday I was horribly ill, and only now am beginning to feel 
>>>>>>>>> normal. Get 
>>>>>>>>> the shots, you really do not want this flu!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I used to think that there *could be* true hypercomputation (what 
>>>>>>>> is called super-Turing machines) in nature, but now I think that there 
>>>>>>>> is 
>>>>>>>> no such thing (but anything remains possible, of course).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *But the idea of substrate-independent Turing machines is 
>>>>>>>> incomplete.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu shot 
>>>>>>>> and I haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I hope the flu program doesn't start running in / affect my 
>>>>>>>> substrate!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - pt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to pop your bubble here, but a few years ago at a New Year's 
>>>>>>> party a person who had cancer go into remission made this statement 
>>>>>>> that 
>>>>>>> she never got colds or flus. A doctor I know was there and responded 
>>>>>>> with 
>>>>>>> how not getting these sicknesses is a risk factor for cancer! The woman 
>>>>>>> died a last summer with the return of her non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hy

Re: Planck Length

2019-01-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 10:14:24 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 9:59 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu shot 
>> and I haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years.*
>
>
> It's odd, no invention in human history has saved more lives than vaccines 
> and yet from the day the first one was invented in 1796 there has been 
> unscientific resistance against its use; it is the reason Polio was not 
> eliminated from the face of the Earth decades ago and the reason there is 
> currently a measles outbreak in anti-vaccine hotspots in the USA. And no 
> less a person than the presadent has spread the ridiculous rumor that 
> vaccinations cause autism. 
>
>   John K Clark
>

I simply forgot to get flu shots this year. I have gotten two of cases of 
the flu, Last week was a fairly ordinary flu that was annoying. The flu I 
had this week was horrible. It hit me Sunday evening and within 10 minutes 
I was staggering. I had 102 F fever and had these bizarre delerium dreams. 
The fever ended on Tuesday, but the prolonged part began. Influenza can 
cause the lungs to fill with fluid, and my left lung was filled and this 
hurt a lot. I felt as if I was impaled through the left chest. It took 
until today to finally expectorate that out. There are some vestiges of 
this, but it is largely gone. I am completely exhausted.

LC

>  
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 6:06:09 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:48:38 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 12:57:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that in physics what might be called a halting condition 
>>>>>> is an attractor point or limit cycle. Equilibrium is the terminal point 
>>>>>> in 
>>>>>> the evolution of some system, say thinking according to Landauer's 
>>>>>> original 
>>>>>> paper on thermodynamics and information. The quantum field theory of 
>>>>>> black 
>>>>>> holes has no equilibrium condition. Now if the black hole runs away with 
>>>>>> Hawking radiation it will “explode” in a burst of gamma rays and other 
>>>>>> quanta. A Turing machine that does not halt can also be said to burn 
>>>>>> itself 
>>>>>> out, and if anyone has programmed assembler there were loops you could 
>>>>>> put 
>>>>>> a machine into that might do damage. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for being slow on this. I forgot to get flu shots this year and 
>>>>>> I have been hit with a real doozy of a flu. Since Sunday night until 
>>>>>> yesterday I was horribly ill, and only now am beginning to feel normal. 
>>>>>> Get 
>>>>>> the shots, you really do not want this flu!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to think that there *could be* true hypercomputation (what is 
>>>>> called super-Turing machines) in nature, but now I think that there is no 
>>>>> such thing (but anything remains possible, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> *But the idea of substrate-independent Turing machines is incomplete.*
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu shot 
>>>>> and I haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I hope the flu program doesn't start running in / affect my 
>>>>> substrate!
>>>>>
>>>>> - pt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hate to pop your bubble here, but a few years ago at a New Year's 
>>>> party a person who had cancer go into remission made this statement that 
>>>> she never got colds or flus. A doctor I know was there and responded with 
>>>> how not getting these sicknesses is a risk factor for cancer! The woman 
>>>> died a last summer with the return of her non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 
>>>>
>>>> Hyper-Turing computations or results are not accessible to local 
>>>> observers.
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What about the interviews of people over 100 who say they've never had a 
>>> cold or the flu? 
>>>
>>> And where are these hyper-Turing processes occurring?
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>  
>> Hypercomputations run into extreme energy or frequency, so the conclusion 
>> of it occurs in black holes or in trans-Plankian scales we can't observe. 
>> In a sense it is a sort of renormailization and treated as a p-adic 
>> regularization of quantum gravity.
>>
>> When it comes to cold and flu I am just echoing what I was told. You 
>> would have to research this out more extensively.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> I think "hypercomputing" is not needed in the quantum space (LQG) model of 
> black holes (the recent Penn State, LSU model).
>
> As for the flu, I'm afraid researching it might jinx me. :)
>
> - pt
>

LQG of course breaks Lorentz symmetry near the Planck scale. The finite 
elements have reduced diffeomorphic symmetry, and which buries away any 
such problems. The numerical simulations you reference are a typical case 
of computer science, input variables in, output variable result. LQG has a 
hard renormalization UV cutoff that breaks the symmetry of the field. 

LC
 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 12:57:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> My point is that in physics what might be called a halting condition is 
>>>> an attractor point or limit cycle. Equilibrium is the terminal point in 
>>>> the 
>>>> evolution of some system, say thinking according to Landauer's original 
>>>> paper on thermodynamics and information. The quantum field theory of black 
>>>> holes has no equilibrium condition. Now if the black hole runs away with 
>>>> Hawking radiation it will “explode” in a burst of gamma rays and other 
>>>> quanta. A Turing machine that does not halt can also be said to burn 
>>>> itself 
>>>> out, and if anyone has programmed assembler there were loops you could put 
>>>> a machine into that might do damage. 
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for being slow on this. I forgot to get flu shots this year and I 
>>>> have been hit with a real doozy of a flu. Since Sunday night until 
>>>> yesterday I was horribly ill, and only now am beginning to feel normal. 
>>>> Get 
>>>> the shots, you really do not want this flu!
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>
>>> I used to think that there *could be* true hypercomputation (what is 
>>> called super-Turing machines) in nature, but now I think that there is no 
>>> such thing (but anything remains possible, of course).
>>>
>>> *But the idea of substrate-independent Turing machines is incomplete.*
>>>
>>> I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu shot and 
>>> I haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years.
>>>
>>> But I hope the flu program doesn't start running in / affect my 
>>> substrate!
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>
>> I hate to pop your bubble here, but a few years ago at a New Year's party 
>> a person who had cancer go into remission made this statement that she 
>> never got colds or flus. A doctor I know was there and responded with how 
>> not getting these sicknesses is a risk factor for cancer! The woman died a 
>> last summer with the return of her non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 
>>
>> Hyper-Turing computations or results are not accessible to local 
>> observers.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
>
> What about the interviews of people over 100 who say they've never had a 
> cold or the flu? 
>
> And where are these hyper-Turing processes occurring?
>
> - pt
>
 
Hypercomputations run into extreme energy or frequency, so the conclusion 
of it occurs in black holes or in trans-Plankian scales we can't observe. 
In a sense it is a sort of renormailization and treated as a p-adic 
regularization of quantum gravity.

When it comes to cold and flu I am just echoing what I was told. You would 
have to research this out more extensively.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> My point is that in physics what might be called a halting condition is 
>> an attractor point or limit cycle. Equilibrium is the terminal point in the 
>> evolution of some system, say thinking according to Landauer's original 
>> paper on thermodynamics and information. The quantum field theory of black 
>> holes has no equilibrium condition. Now if the black hole runs away with 
>> Hawking radiation it will “explode” in a burst of gamma rays and other 
>> quanta. A Turing machine that does not halt can also be said to burn itself 
>> out, and if anyone has programmed assembler there were loops you could put 
>> a machine into that might do damage. 
>>
>> Sorry for being slow on this. I forgot to get flu shots this year and I 
>> have been hit with a real doozy of a flu. Since Sunday night until 
>> yesterday I was horribly ill, and only now am beginning to feel normal. Get 
>> the shots, you really do not want this flu!
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I used to think that there *could be* true hypercomputation (what is 
> called super-Turing machines) in nature, but now I think that there is no 
> such thing (but anything remains possible, of course).
>
> *But the idea of substrate-independent Turing machines is incomplete.*
>
> I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu shot and I 
> haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years.
>
> But I hope the flu program doesn't start running in / affect my substrate!
>
> - pt
>

I hate to pop your bubble here, but a few years ago at a New Year's party a 
person who had cancer go into remission made this statement that she never 
got colds or flus. A doctor I know was there and responded with how not 
getting these sicknesses is a risk factor for cancer! The woman died a last 
summer with the return of her non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 

Hyper-Turing computations or results are not accessible to local observers.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 6:19:07 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:09:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Jan 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:25:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental 
>>>>>>> constants G, h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that 
>>>>>>> measuring a length that small with photons of the same approximate wave 
>>>>>>> length, would result in a black hole? TIA, AG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> In any wave the speed of the wave is wavelength times frequency and 
>>>>>> according to 
>>>>>> Planck E= h*frequency  so E= C*h/wavelength.  Thus the smaller the 
>>>>>> wavelength the greater the energy. According to Einstein energy is 
>>>>>> just another form of mass (E = MC^2) so at some point the wavelength is 
>>>>>> so small and the light photon is so energetic (aka massive) that the 
>>>>>> escape 
>>>>>> velocity is greater than the speed of light and the object becomes a 
>>>>>> Black 
>>>>>> Hole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or you can look at it another way, we know from Heisenberg that to 
>>>>>> determine the position of a particle more precisely with light you have 
>>>>>> to 
>>>>>> use a smaller wavelength, and there is something called the  "Compton 
>>>>>> wavelength" (Lc) ; to pin down the position of a particle of mass m to 
>>>>>> within one Compton wavelength would require light of enough energy to 
>>>>>> create another particle of that mass. The formula for the Compton 
>>>>>> Wavelength is Lc= h/(2PI*M*c).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Schwarzschild told us that the radius of a Black Hole (Rs), that is 
>>>>>> to say where the escape velocity is the speed of light  is:  Rs= GM/c^2. 
>>>>>> At 
>>>>>> some mass Lc will equal Rs and that mass is the Planck mass, and that 
>>>>>> Black 
>>>>>> Hole will have the radius of the Planck Length, 1.6*10^-35 meters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then if you do a little algebra: 
>>>>>> GM/c^2 = h/(2PI*M*c)
>>>>>> GM= hc/2PI*M
>>>>>> GM^2 = hc/2*PI
>>>>>> M^2 = hc/2*PI*G
>>>>>> M = (hc/2*PI*G)^1/2and that is the formula for the Planck Mass , 
>>>>>> it's .02 milligrams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Planck Length turns out to be (G*h/2*PI*c^3)^1/2 and the 
>>>>>> Planck time is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Planck Temperature Tp is sort of the counterpoint to Absolute 
>>>>>> Zero, Tp is as hot as things can get because the black-body radiation 
>>>>>> given 
>>>>>> off by things when they are at temperature Tp have a wavelength equal to 
>>>>>> the Planck Length, the distance light can move in the Planck Time of 
>>>>>> 10^-44 
>>>>>> seconds. The formula for the Planck temperature is Tp = Mp*c^2/k where 
>>>>>> Mp 
>>>>>> is the Planck Mass and K is Boltzmann's constant and it works out to be 
>>>>>> 1.4*10^32 degrees Kelvin.  Beyond that point both Quantum Mechanics and 
>>>>>> General Relativity break down and nobody understands what if anything is 
>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The surface temperature of the sun is at 5.7 *10^3  degrees Kelvin so 
>

Re: Planck Length

2019-01-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:09:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:25:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental constants 
>>>>> G, h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that measuring a 
>>>>> length that small with photons of the same approximate wave length, would 
>>>>> result in a black hole? TIA, AG*
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> In any wave the speed of the wave is wavelength times frequency and 
>>>> according to 
>>>> Planck E= h*frequency  so E= C*h/wavelength.  Thus the smaller the 
>>>> wavelength the greater the energy. According to Einstein energy is 
>>>> just another form of mass (E = MC^2) so at some point the wavelength is 
>>>> so small and the light photon is so energetic (aka massive) that the 
>>>> escape 
>>>> velocity is greater than the speed of light and the object becomes a Black 
>>>> Hole.
>>>>
>>>> Or you can look at it another way, we know from Heisenberg that to 
>>>> determine the position of a particle more precisely with light you have to 
>>>> use a smaller wavelength, and there is something called the  "Compton 
>>>> wavelength" (Lc) ; to pin down the position of a particle of mass m to 
>>>> within one Compton wavelength would require light of enough energy to 
>>>> create another particle of that mass. The formula for the Compton 
>>>> Wavelength is Lc= h/(2PI*M*c).
>>>>
>>>> Schwarzschild told us that the radius of a Black Hole (Rs), that is to 
>>>> say where the escape velocity is the speed of light  is:  Rs= GM/c^2. At 
>>>> some mass Lc will equal Rs and that mass is the Planck mass, and that 
>>>> Black 
>>>> Hole will have the radius of the Planck Length, 1.6*10^-35 meters.
>>>>
>>>> Then if you do a little algebra: 
>>>> GM/c^2 = h/(2PI*M*c)
>>>> GM= hc/2PI*M
>>>> GM^2 = hc/2*PI
>>>> M^2 = hc/2*PI*G
>>>> M = (hc/2*PI*G)^1/2and that is the formula for the Planck Mass , 
>>>> it's .02 milligrams.
>>>>
>>>> And the Planck Length turns out to be (G*h/2*PI*c^3)^1/2 and the Planck 
>>>> time 
>>>> is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. 
>>>>
>>>> The Planck Temperature Tp is sort of the counterpoint to Absolute Zero, 
>>>> Tp is as hot as things can get because the black-body radiation given off 
>>>> by things when they are at temperature Tp have a wavelength equal to the 
>>>> Planck Length, the distance light can move in the Planck Time of 10^-44 
>>>> seconds. The formula for the Planck temperature is Tp = Mp*c^2/k where Mp 
>>>> is the Planck Mass and K is Boltzmann's constant and it works out to be 
>>>> 1.4*10^32 degrees Kelvin.  Beyond that point both Quantum Mechanics and 
>>>> General Relativity break down and nobody understands what if anything is 
>>>> going on.
>>>>
>>>> The surface temperature of the sun is at 5.7 *10^3  degrees Kelvin so 
>>>> if it were 2.46*10^28 times hotter it would be at the Planck Temperature, 
>>>> and because radiant energy is proportional to T^4 the sun would 
>>>> be 3.67*10^113 times brighter. At that temperature to equal the sun's 
>>>> brightness the surface area would have to be reduced by a factor 
>>>> of 3.67*10^113, the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the radius 
>>>> squared, so you'd have to reduce the sun's radius by (3.67*10^113)^1/2, 
>>>> and that is  6.05*10^56. The sun's radius is 6.95*10^8   meters and 
>>>>  6.95*10^8/ 6.05*10^56  is 1.15^10^-48 meters. 
>>>>
>>>> That means a sphere at the Planck Temperature with a radius 10 thousand 
>>>> billion times SMALLER than the Planck Length would be as bright as the 
>>>> sun, 
>>>> but as

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 5:55 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > As for LQG's "quantum geometry" being empirical, as I posted before
>>
>> *Glimpses of Space-Time Beyond the Singularities Using Supercomputers*
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01747 
>>
>
> I see nothing empirical in that, it's a supercomputer simulation. It's 
> saying "maybe this is what's going on when things get smaller than the 
> Planck length", well maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I saw no experiment or 
> even a proposed  experiment that could tell us. Perhaps someday Loop 
> Quantum Gravity or String Theory will be able to make a testable 
> prediction but they're not there yet so until then it's mathematics not 
> physics. 
>
> > Why are people so wedded to the traditional spacetime.
>>
>
> Because they're wedded to the scientific method.  I asked before how you 
> could perform an experiment without making use of space or time but 
> received no answer. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

Loop quantum gravitation stems from the ADM Hamiltonian constraint NH = 0, 
where N is a timelike lapse function that connects one spatial surface to 
another in the general metric

ds^2 = N^2dt^2 - γ_{ij}(N^idt - dx^i)(N^jdt - dx^j)

for the spatial metric γ_{ij} and the spatial shift functions N^i, These 
obey the additional constraint N^iH_i = 0 with H_i = -2N^k∂_jπ_{ik}^j. Here 
π_{ik}= g^{1/2}(K_{ik} - γ_{ik}Tr(K)) with I the extrinsic curvature. Now 
write a Lagrangian 

L = π^{ij}dγ_{ij} - NH - N^iH_i

and with the action S = ∫dtd^3x L there is the sum over geometries or path 
integral

Z = ∫D[γ]e^{-iS}

so that with Z|0> = |Ψ[γ]> the functional differential δZ/δN = 0 gives the 
Wheeler DeWitt equation HΨ[γ] = 0. A variation with the shift function N^i 
gives the momentum constraint equation. 

The Wheeler DeWitt equation is a constraint equation. There is no dynamics 
with this. Abhay Ashtekar did a little trick, which is just a space plus 
time version of what is done with spinor general relativity and put these 
equations in spinor form. These spinors with their complex realizations and 
integrations on the Argand or complex plane is what leads to this idea of 
loops. The bosonic string or type 0 string has lots of structure on the 
complex plane as well, and in fact the functional forms are θ-functions and 
Klein J-invariants from Eisenstein sequences. Back to this in a minute.

The LQG community has worked hard to try to get basic quantum descriptions 
of black holes and so it is a cumbersome approach that was figured out with 
string theory by Vafa and others. This is not to say it is wrong, but I 
think it is being taken into an arena where it might not apply. In fact I 
think it is a constraint that may just mean how a vacuum is defined in 
general, including the de Sitter space or vacuum where string theory seems 
inapplicable. 

I and another have found the Wheeler DeWitt equation appears to be a 
constraint under a holonomy that is a Schroedinger type of equation. The 
Jacobi θ-functions obey a Schroedinger type of equation or in a Euclidean 
setting have a heat kernel. I am not going to comment a whole lot more on 
this for things are still very uncertain.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-20 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:25:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental constants 
>>>> G, h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that measuring a 
>>>> length that small with photons of the same approximate wave length, would 
>>>> result in a black hole? TIA, AG*
>>>
>>>  
>>> In any wave the speed of the wave is wavelength times frequency and 
>>> according to 
>>> Planck E= h*frequency  so E= C*h/wavelength.  Thus the smaller the 
>>> wavelength the greater the energy. According to Einstein energy is just 
>>> another form of mass (E = MC^2) so at some point the wavelength is so 
>>> small and the light photon is so energetic (aka massive) that the escape 
>>> velocity is greater than the speed of light and the object becomes a Black 
>>> Hole.
>>>
>>> Or you can look at it another way, we know from Heisenberg that to 
>>> determine the position of a particle more precisely with light you have to 
>>> use a smaller wavelength, and there is something called the  "Compton 
>>> wavelength" (Lc) ; to pin down the position of a particle of mass m to 
>>> within one Compton wavelength would require light of enough energy to 
>>> create another particle of that mass. The formula for the Compton 
>>> Wavelength is Lc= h/(2PI*M*c).
>>>
>>> Schwarzschild told us that the radius of a Black Hole (Rs), that is to 
>>> say where the escape velocity is the speed of light  is:  Rs= GM/c^2. At 
>>> some mass Lc will equal Rs and that mass is the Planck mass, and that Black 
>>> Hole will have the radius of the Planck Length, 1.6*10^-35 meters.
>>>
>>> Then if you do a little algebra: 
>>> GM/c^2 = h/(2PI*M*c)
>>> GM= hc/2PI*M
>>> GM^2 = hc/2*PI
>>> M^2 = hc/2*PI*G
>>> M = (hc/2*PI*G)^1/2and that is the formula for the Planck Mass , 
>>> it's .02 milligrams.
>>>
>>> And the Planck Length turns out to be (G*h/2*PI*c^3)^1/2 and the Planck 
>>> time 
>>> is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. 
>>>
>>> The Planck Temperature Tp is sort of the counterpoint to Absolute Zero, 
>>> Tp is as hot as things can get because the black-body radiation given off 
>>> by things when they are at temperature Tp have a wavelength equal to the 
>>> Planck Length, the distance light can move in the Planck Time of 10^-44 
>>> seconds. The formula for the Planck temperature is Tp = Mp*c^2/k where Mp 
>>> is the Planck Mass and K is Boltzmann's constant and it works out to be 
>>> 1.4*10^32 degrees Kelvin.  Beyond that point both Quantum Mechanics and 
>>> General Relativity break down and nobody understands what if anything is 
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> The surface temperature of the sun is at 5.7 *10^3  degrees Kelvin so if 
>>> it were 2.46*10^28 times hotter it would be at the Planck Temperature, and 
>>> because radiant energy is proportional to T^4 the sun would be 3.67*10^113 
>>> times brighter. At that temperature to equal the sun's brightness the 
>>> surface area would have to be reduced by a factor of 3.67*10^113, the 
>>> surface area of a sphere is proportional to the radius squared, so you'd 
>>> have to reduce the sun's radius by (3.67*10^113)^1/2, and that is  
>>> 6.05*10^56. 
>>> The sun's radius is 6.95*10^8   meters and  6.95*10^8/ 6.05*10^56  is 
>>> 1.15^10^-48 meters. 
>>>
>>> That means a sphere at the Planck Temperature with a radius 10 thousand 
>>> billion times SMALLER than the Planck Length would be as bright as the sun, 
>>> but as far as we know nothing can be that small. If the radius was 10^13 
>>> times longer it would be as small as things can get and the object would be 
>>> (10^13)^2 = 10^26 times as bright as the sun. I'm just speculating but 
>>> perhaps that's the luminosity of the Big Bang; I say that because that's 
>>> how bright things would be if the smallest thing we think can exist was as 
>>> hot as we think things can get. 
>>>
>>> John 

Re: Discrete theories of space

2019-01-20 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with DISJOINT 
> discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be juxtaposed, do such 
> theories acknowledge difficulty of motion between the units, which might or 
> might not have boundaries? TIA, AG
>

I am not sure how to impress people with how bad this thinking is. These 
slice and diced chunks of spacetime, whether voxels, plaquettes and so 
forth have violations of Lorentz symmetry of spacetime. This means that 
curiously the symmetry of gravitation would be violated at higher energy, 
and in fact where it is quantized. These ideas have further been falsified 
by the lack of dispersion from distant sources. These ideas are bad 
interpretations of the Planck length. The Planck length is just the 
smallest length beyond which you can isolate a quantum bit. Remember, it is 
the length at which the Compton wavelength of a black hole equals its 
Schwarzschild radius. It is a bit similar to the Nyquist frequency in 
engineering. In order to measure the frequency of a rotating system you 
must take pictures that are at least double that frequency. Similarly to 
measure the frequency of an EM wave you need to have a wave with Fourier 
modes that are 2 or more times the frequency you want to measure. The black 
hole is in a sense a fundamental cut-off in the time scale, or in a 
reciprocal manner the energy, one can sample space to find qubits. 

The levels of confusion over this are enormous. It does not tell us that 
spacetime is somehow sliced and diced into briquets or pieces. It does not 
tell us that quantum energy of some fields can't be far larger than the 
Planck energy, or equivalently the wavelength much smaller. This would be 
analogous to a resonance state, and there is no reason there can't be such 
a thing in quantum gravity. The Planck scale would suggest this sort of 
state may decay into a sub-Planckian energy.  Further, it is plausible that 
quantum gravity beyond what appears as a linearized weak field 
approximation similar to the QED of photon bunched pairs may only exist at 
most an order of magnitude larger than the Planck scale anyway. A 
holographic screen is then a sort of beam splitter at the quantum-classical 
divide.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-18 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:22, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:25:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM  wrote:
>>
>> *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental constants 
>>> G, h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that measuring a 
>>> length that small with photons of the same approximate wave length, would 
>>> result in a black hole? TIA, AG*
>>
>>  
>> In any wave the speed of the wave is wavelength times frequency and 
>> according to 
>> Planck E= h*frequency  so E= C*h/wavelength.  Thus the smaller the 
>> wavelength the greater the energy. According to Einstein energy is just 
>> another form of mass (E = MC^2) so at some point the wavelength is so 
>> small and the light photon is so energetic (aka massive) that the escape 
>> velocity is greater than the speed of light and the object becomes a Black 
>> Hole.
>>
>> Or you can look at it another way, we know from Heisenberg that to 
>> determine the position of a particle more precisely with light you have to 
>> use a smaller wavelength, and there is something called the  "Compton 
>> wavelength" (Lc) ; to pin down the position of a particle of mass m to 
>> within one Compton wavelength would require light of enough energy to 
>> create another particle of that mass. The formula for the Compton 
>> Wavelength is Lc= h/(2PI*M*c).
>>
>> Schwarzschild told us that the radius of a Black Hole (Rs), that is to 
>> say where the escape velocity is the speed of light  is:  Rs= GM/c^2. At 
>> some mass Lc will equal Rs and that mass is the Planck mass, and that Black 
>> Hole will have the radius of the Planck Length, 1.6*10^-35 meters.
>>
>> Then if you do a little algebra: 
>> GM/c^2 = h/(2PI*M*c)
>> GM= hc/2PI*M
>> GM^2 = hc/2*PI
>> M^2 = hc/2*PI*G
>> M = (hc/2*PI*G)^1/2and that is the formula for the Planck Mass , 
>> it's .02 milligrams.
>>
>> And the Planck Length turns out to be (G*h/2*PI*c^3)^1/2 and the Planck time 
>> is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. 
>>
>> The Planck Temperature Tp is sort of the counterpoint to Absolute Zero, 
>> Tp is as hot as things can get because the black-body radiation given off 
>> by things when they are at temperature Tp have a wavelength equal to the 
>> Planck Length, the distance light can move in the Planck Time of 10^-44 
>> seconds. The formula for the Planck temperature is Tp = Mp*c^2/k where Mp 
>> is the Planck Mass and K is Boltzmann's constant and it works out to be 
>> 1.4*10^32 degrees Kelvin.  Beyond that point both Quantum Mechanics and 
>> General Relativity break down and nobody understands what if anything is 
>> going on.
>>
>> The surface temperature of the sun is at 5.7 *10^3  degrees Kelvin so if 
>> it were 2.46*10^28 times hotter it would be at the Planck Temperature, and 
>> because radiant energy is proportional to T^4 the sun would be 3.67*10^113 
>> times brighter. At that temperature to equal the sun's brightness the 
>> surface area would have to be reduced by a factor of 3.67*10^113, the 
>> surface area of a sphere is proportional to the radius squared, so you'd 
>> have to reduce the sun's radius by (3.67*10^113)^1/2, and that is  
>> 6.05*10^56. 
>> The sun's radius is 6.95*10^8   meters and  6.95*10^8/ 6.05*10^56  is 
>> 1.15^10^-48 meters. 
>>
>> That means a sphere at the Planck Temperature with a radius 10 thousand 
>> billion times SMALLER than the Planck Length would be as bright as the sun, 
>> but as far as we know nothing can be that small. If the radius was 10^13 
>> times longer it would be as small as things can get and the object would be 
>> (10^13)^2 = 10^26 times as bright as the sun. I'm just speculating but 
>> perhaps that's the luminosity of the Big Bang; I say that because that's 
>> how bright things would be if the smallest thing we think can exist was as 
>> hot as we think things can get. 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
>
> *Later I'll post some questions I have about your derivation of the Planck 
> length, but for now here's a philosophical question; Is there any 
> difference between the claim that space is discrete, from the claim or 
> conjecture that we cannot in principle measure a length shorter than the 
> Planck length? *
> *TIA, AG *
>
>
> That is a very good question. I have no answer. I don’t think physicists 
> have an answer either, and I do think that this requires the solution of 
> the “quantum gravity” or the “quantum space-time” problem. 
> With loop-gravity theory, I would say that the continuum is eventually 
> replaced by something discrete, but not so with string theory; for example. 
> With Mechanism, there are argument that something must stay “continuous”, 
> but it might be only the distribution of probability (the real-complex 
> amplitude). 
>
> Bruno
>

The Planck length is just the smallest length beyond which you can isolate 
a 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-12 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*

>>>
>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>>> Diagrams aren't any good. 
>>>
>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know 
>>> what the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that 
>>> number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
>>> Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. 
>>> And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and 
>>> that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in 
>>> other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
>>> involve the Electromagnetic Force.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
>>> completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
>>> were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
>>> the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
>>> that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
>>> permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
>>> speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
>>> permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
>>> theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
>>> magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  
>>> So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
>>> calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>>
>>
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
> propagators derived from them.
>
>
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
> connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
> diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
> would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you 
> then need to specify how many.
>
>
> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
> from them.
>
>
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
> same problem: How many histories?
>
> Brent
>
 
The number of diagrams grows exponentially. As I recall the QED industry is 
up to 12 orders of radiative corrections and renormalization orders. The 
number of diagrams to evaluate and sum is in the millions if not billions. 
This stuff is done on supercomputers these days. People do not really 
evaluate Feynman diagrams, they write computer programs.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
>>>> alpha.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
>>> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know 
>>> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>>> the diagrams should operate. 
>>>
>>>
>>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>>> is significant.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.
>>
>
> Do you really think that that is relevant? How?
>
> Bruce 
>

The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' + 
δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of 
adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant 
is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is 
the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e 
from all radiative corrections possible.

LC
 

>
> LC 
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-11 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
>> alpha.*
>>
>
> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value 
> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and 
> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
> the diagrams should operate. 
>
>
> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
> is significant.
>
> Brent
>

Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:49:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> >>The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED 
 calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to 
 calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the 
 Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which 
 is almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:

>>>
>>> >That is an experimentally derived value!
>>>
>>
>> No,  the experimentally derived value is 137.035999139
>>
>> *>Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was 
>>> computable. *
>>
>>
>> I said that was my intuition, I don't have a proof.   
>>
>> > *it is a physical constant that must be measured.*
>>
>>
>> I know, that's why I said the Fine Structure Constant was defined 
>> physically not mathematically,  and that's why any physical theory that is 
>> in conflict with that measured value for the FSC can not be a good theory. 
>> Feynman's QED is not in conflict with it, in fact it produced the closest 
>> agreement between experiment and theory in the entire history of science.
>>
>> > *But it is not computable from first principles,*  
>>
>>
>> That depends on what the first principle is, if its charged particles 
>> behave the way Feynman said they do then you can compute a value for the 
>> FSC that is very very close to the best measured one. Maybe when 
>> measurement becomes more precise a statistically significant discrepancy 
>> will show up between the experimental value and the theoretical value,
>>
>
> There is no theoretical value". All the values that we have are measured 
> -- often in different ways, or from the results of different experiments to 
> measure the same things, such as g-2, so there can be a range of measured 
> results. The CODATA value is their best-fit value to the whole range of 
> different experimental measurements. But in the final analysis, the fine 
> structure constant is an arbitrary physical constant that must be measured 
> -- there is no "theoretical value".
>
> Bruce
>

Yes and no. The speed of light and Planck's constant for instance are 
measured input. The charge is both measured and estimated with charge 
renormalization. 

LC
 

>
> if so we'll have to fine something better than Feynman Diagrams because in 
>> science when experiment and theory fight experiment always wins.  
>>  
>>
>>> *>You have to define what you mean by "computable". *
>>
>>
>> The Fine Structure Constant is computable if and only if there exists a 
>> finite algorithm that can work on a finite amount of data and produce a 
>> number in a finite amount of time that is arbitrarily close to it.  I don't 
>> claim to have such a algorithm I'm just saying my hunch is it exists and 
>> Feynman gives us reason for optimism. But I could be wrong.
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:01:46 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> >> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic 
 number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Is it computable at least?*
>>
>>
>> Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a 
>> mathematical definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and 
>> indeed we've already computed a very good approximation of it and there is 
>> no reason to think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers 
>> that could sum up more of those Feynman diagrams.  
>>
>
> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman 
> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of 
> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron 
> depend on the value of the FSC. Comparing the calculations with experiment 
> gives an accurate value for the FSC. the fine structure constant itself is 
> an arbitrary constant of nature, and not directly callable.
>
> Bruce
>

Huh? The QED industry of computing Feynman diagrams is to find more 
accurate charge renormalization. That in turn is what computes a more 
accurate fine structure constant.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-09 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I would stay with dimensionless units, which can include qubits etc. The 
Planck mass is m_p = sqrt{ħc/G} and this can be compared to the mass of 
some elementary particle M so that

(M/m_p)^2 = GM^2/ħc,

which looks suspiciously similar to the fine structure constant α_e 
= e^2/(4πεħc) ~ 1/137 and we can call the above ratio α_g. My temptation 
is to put the mass of the Higgs boson in for the mass M = 125GeV and the 
Planck mass is 1.22×10^{19} GeV and we then get α_g = 1.02×10^{-36}. 

I chose the Higgs particle mass because I think the Higgs field is a scalar 
field connected to gravity. Also the masses of all fundamental particles we 
know, not complex bound systems like hadrons with an induced mass gap, is 
given by the Higgs field. The masses of other particles is related to this 
with various Yukawa coupling terms. The Higgs field, along with inflaton 
and related scalar fields (dilatons axions etc) are potentially singlet 
entanglement states of a gauge-like field that in a triplet entanglement is 
equivalent to a graviton. 

LC

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:10:36 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
> I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two 
> universes and which properties are incomparable. I think this has 
> applications regarding what knowledge can be extracted via simulation of 
> (from one's POV) other abstract realities and worlds (which may be actual 
> from someone else's point of view).
>
> So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's 
> insights/corrections:
>
> Incomparable properties:
>
>- Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy 
>in that universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
>- Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other 
>universe?)
>- Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these 
>forces in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to 
>our own)
>- Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other 
>universe)
>- Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
>- Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
>- Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
>- Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our 
>own universe)
>
> Comparable properties:
>
>- Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
>- Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to 
>advance)
>- Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
>- Entropy
>- Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically 
>meaningful units)
>
> Unsure:
>
>- Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
>- Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)
>
>
> So if we simulate some other universe, we can describe and relate it to 
> our own physical universe in similar terms of information content, 
> computational complexity, dimensionality, discrete units, etc. but many 
> things seem to have no meaning at all: time, distance, size.
>
> Do these reflect limits of simulation, or are they limits that apply to 
> our own universe itself?  e.g., if everything in this universe was made 
> 100X larger, and all forces similarly scaled, would we notice?  Perhaps 
> incomparable properties are things that are variant (and illusory) in an 
> objective sense.
>
> A final question, are they truly "causally disconnected" given we can 
> simulate them? E.g. if we can use computers to temporarily compel matter in 
> our universe to behave like things in that simulated universe, then in some 
> sense isn't that a causal interaction?  What things can travel through such 
> portals of simulation beyond information?
>
> Jason
>
> P.S.
>
> It is interesting that when we consider mathematical/platonic objects, we 
> likewise face the same limits in terms of being able to understand them.  
> e.g., we can't point to the Mandlebrot set, nor compare its size in terms 
> of physical units.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-01-09 Thread Lawrence Crowell
This is the basic argument. The Compton wavelength or equivalently the de 
Broglie wavelength with v = c is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. That is 
how to derive the Planck length. The argument that nothing smaller exists 
just means the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can't isolate something 
smaller than its wavelength, a Fourier transform version of the Nyquist 
frequency, and for general relativity anything smaller than a black hole is 
not observable. There is then some odd equivalency between black hole 
physics or general relativity and quantum physics. This means one is not 
able to isolate a quantum bit in some region smaller than a Planck area, or 
volume. The event horizon of a black hole is then a system of Planck are 
pixels or units of area. The Bekenstein formula is that the entropy of a 
black hole is

S = k A/4ℓ_p^2

for ℓ_p = sqrt{Għ/c^3} the Planck length. The area of the black hole 
horizon is A = 4πr^2 and r = 2GM/c^2. This Schwarzschild horizon area is 
then some integer multiple of the Planck areas,  A_p = πℓ_p^2, A =  4Nℓ_p^2 
and we find S = Nk. It is an equipartition result.

LC

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 3:25:16 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM > wrote:
>
> *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental constants G, 
>> h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that measuring a 
>> length that small with photons of the same approximate wave length, would 
>> result in a black hole? TIA, AG*
>
>  
> In any wave the speed of the wave is wavelength times frequency and according 
> to 
> Planck E= h*frequency  so E= C*h/wavelength.  Thus the smaller the 
> wavelength the greater the energy. According to Einstein energy is just 
> another form of mass (E = MC^2) so at some point the wavelength is so 
> small and the light photon is so energetic (aka massive) that the escape 
> velocity is greater than the speed of light and the object becomes a Black 
> Hole.
>
> Or you can look at it another way, we know from Heisenberg that to 
> determine the position of a particle more precisely with light you have to 
> use a smaller wavelength, and there is something called the  "Compton 
> wavelength" (Lc) ; to pin down the position of a particle of mass m to 
> within one Compton wavelength would require light of enough energy to 
> create another particle of that mass. The formula for the Compton 
> Wavelength is Lc= h/(2PI*M*c).
>
> Schwarzschild told us that the radius of a Black Hole (Rs), that is to 
> say where the escape velocity is the speed of light  is:  Rs= GM/c^2. At 
> some mass Lc will equal Rs and that mass is the Planck mass, and that Black 
> Hole will have the radius of the Planck Length, 1.6*10^-35 meters.
>
> Then if you do a little algebra: 
> GM/c^2 = h/(2PI*M*c)
> GM= hc/2PI*M
> GM^2 = hc/2*PI
> M^2 = hc/2*PI*G
> M = (hc/2*PI*G)^1/2and that is the formula for the Planck Mass , it's 
> .02 milligrams.
>
> And the Planck Length turns out to be (G*h/2*PI*c^3)^1/2 and the Planck time 
> is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. 
>
> The Planck Temperature Tp is sort of the counterpoint to Absolute Zero, Tp 
> is as hot as things can get because the black-body radiation given off by 
> things when they are at temperature Tp have a wavelength equal to the 
> Planck Length, the distance light can move in the Planck Time of 10^-44 
> seconds. The formula for the Planck temperature is Tp = Mp*c^2/k where Mp 
> is the Planck Mass and K is Boltzmann's constant and it works out to be 
> 1.4*10^32 degrees Kelvin.  Beyond that point both Quantum Mechanics and 
> General Relativity break down and nobody understands what if anything is 
> going on.
>
> The surface temperature of the sun is at 5.7 *10^3  degrees Kelvin so if 
> it were 2.46*10^28 times hotter it would be at the Planck Temperature, and 
> because radiant energy is proportional to T^4 the sun would be 3.67*10^113 
> times brighter. At that temperature to equal the sun's brightness the 
> surface area would have to be reduced by a factor of 3.67*10^113, the 
> surface area of a sphere is proportional to the radius squared, so you'd 
> have to reduce the sun's radius by (3.67*10^113)^1/2, and that is  
> 6.05*10^56. 
> The sun's radius is 6.95*10^8   meters and  6.95*10^8/ 6.05*10^56  is 
> 1.15^10^-48 meters. 
>
> That means a sphere at the Planck Temperature with a radius 10 thousand 
> billion times SMALLER than the Planck Length would be as bright as the sun, 
> but as far as we know nothing can be that small. If the radius was 10^13 
> times longer it would be as small as things can get and the object would be 
> (10^13)^2 = 10^26 times as bright as the sun. I'm just speculating but 
> perhaps that's the luminosity of the Big Bang; I say that because that's 
> how bright things would be if the smallest thing we think can exist was as 
> hot as we think things can get. 
>
> John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 

Re: The structure of the world from pure numbers

2018-12-29 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I urge caution with anything Tipler writes. In looking at this paper it is 
clearly long, but at least not mathematically dense. I am not sure what he 
means in the abstract by saying the CMBR is SU(2)_L.

If you want to look at ideas that connect mathematics and number theory to 
physics I would consider the Langlands program. Also the partition of 
integers by Brunier and Ono, how many ways can the integer N be derived by 
the addition of smaller integers, leads to mock Ramanjuan forms and ways 
that quantum states may be integrated in partition functions or path 
integrals. I think the fundamental set of quantum state have some Godel 
number relationship with the zeros of the Riemann zeta function.

LC

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
> Frank Tipler wrote this 2005 paper, I am curious if others are familiar 
> with it, and what your thoughts on it are:
>
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-structure-of-the-world-from-pure-numbers-Tipler/3adcc70233813349ef6ee9779799780d813556e7
>
> I found it to be quite interesting. He claims that the dream of quantum 
> gravity eliminating infinities from the standard model cannot succeed, and 
> also that the entropy of the initial conditions of the universe was zero.
>
> Jason
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Are you smarter than a 5th grade amoeba?

2018-12-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I realized this when it turns out that ants can solve a similar NP problem 
linearly or nearly P when it comes to setting up their tracks.

LC

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:09:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> Bruno should enjoy this. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>  Forwarded Message  
>
> This is a cool bio hack, but is this approach ever going to be faster 
> and/or cheaper than an electronic computer for the same precision of 
> optimization? 
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2018-12-amoeba-approximate-solutions-np-hard-problem.html
>  
>
> Amoeba finds approximate solutions to NP-hard problem in linear time 
>
> December 20, 2018 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org 
>
> Researchers have demonstrated that an amoeba--a single-celled organism 
> consisting mostly of gelatinous protoplasm--has unique computing 
> abilities that may one day offer a competitive alternative to the 
> methods used by conventional computers. 
>
> The researchers, led by Masashi Aono at Keio University, assigned an 
> amoeba to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). The TSP is an 
> optimization problem in which the goal is to find the shortest route 
> between several cities, so that each city is visited exactly once, and 
> the start and end points are the same. 
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180396 
>
> Remarkable problem-solving ability of unicellular amoeboid organism 
> and its mechanism 
>
> Choosing a better move correctly and quickly is a fundamental skill of 
> living organisms that corresponds to solving a computationally 
> demanding problem. A unicellular plasmodium of Physarum polycephalum 
> searches for a solution to the travelling salesman problem (TSP) by 
> changing its shape to minimize the risk of being exposed to aversive 
> light stimuli. In our previous studies, we reported the results on 
> the eight-city TSP solution. In this study, we show that the time 
> taken by plasmodium to find a reasonably high-quality TSP solution 
> grows linearly as the problem size increases from four to eight. 
> Interestingly, the quality of the solution does not degrade despite 
> the explosive expansion of the search space. Formulating a 
> computational model, we show that the linear-time solution can be 
> achieved if the intrinsic dynamics could allocate intracellular 
> resources to grow the plasmodium terminals with a constant rate, even 
> while responding to the stimuli. These results may lead to the 
> development of novel analogue computers enabling approximate solutions 
> of complex optimization problems in linear time. 
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
The singularity of a black hole represents a change in phase of a system. 
The path integral defines states of the form

|ψ> = Z|0> = ∫D[φ]q e^{-iH(φ)t/ħ}|0>.

The partition function in statistical mechanics is of the form

Z = sum_n e^{-E_nβ}.

The primary differences are the partition function is Euclidean and 
discrete, while path integrals are complex valued and for continuous fields 
are themselves continuous. Let us consider the Ising model of spins with H 
= κσ_iσ_j. The partition function may then be thought in the manner 
Onsanger considered as

Z = sum_{ij} e^{-|i – j|ξ(β)},

where ξ(β) = (β - β_c)^n. Here β_c represents a critical temperature 
1/kT_c. The system is discrete since the Hamiltonian operates for nearest 
neighbor interactions. However for β = β_c the range expands “to infinity” 
and the system is continuous in that limit. This occurs at a phase change.

We may then compare this to the hypothesis that spacetime is built up from 
quantum entanglements. At the critical phase entanglements are entirely 
nonlocal and the path integral, or in the Euclidean sense, is continuous. 
The connection between the two is that ξ(β) =  τ/ħ for τ = it a 
Euclideanized time. At ξ(β) = 0 there is a quantum critical point and in 
the setting of entanglements and spacetime what we think of as a continuous 
spacetime is then defined. 

It is better to consider the Reissnor-Nordstrom or Kerr-Newman black hole 
with the outer and inner horizons

r_± = m ± sqrt{m^2 - a^2cos^2θ}.

The ring singularity occurs for r = 0 and θ = 0 or in Cartesian coordinates 
a^2 = x^2 + y^2. The departure from spherical coordinates and Cartesian 
coordinates is an oddity of spacetime being so twisted up in this region. 
The outer ergosphere occurs at r = 2m, there is also an inner horizon that 
occurs at r =  a cosθ, This inner ergosphere is continuous with the ring 
singularity at  θ = 0. The region bounded by the inner ergosphere is where 
timelike geodesics are forced into closed loops. These closed timelike 
loops are then associated with a monodromy induced by a phase where 
spacetime breaks down. 

[image: Kerr-surfaces.png]

Dafermos and Luk found that within the inner horizon there is a breakdown 
in uniqueness conditions for solution https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01722 . 
This is because within this region geodesics may be timelike, and within 
the inner ergosphere they are constrained to be closed. I will confess to 
have not as yet read their entire paper, as it is a long tome with rather 
dense mathematics. However, the result appears at least commensurate with 
the hypothesis that spacetime as understood in general relativity becomes 
less defined.

Closed geodesics occur in anti-de Sitter spacetime as well. I have found a 
homomorphism between black  hole horizon states and states in AdS or 
equivalently CFT states on the boundary. This interestingly is defined with 
a form of the Riemann ζ-functions that give eigenvalues. The AdS_{n+1}  has 
in general topology S^1×R^n for S^1 timelike. Scott Aaronson have found 
that closed timelike loops for quantum computers solve NP problems, and in 
fact appear to cover all of P-SPACE https://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2669.pdf . 
The diagram illustrates this 

[image: quantum computer with closed timelike curves.png]

There are then two registers of qubits R_{cr} that is causality respecting 
and R_{ctc} for qubits on closed timelike paths. The closed timelike curves 
in the path integral provide constructive and destructive interference of 
the wave function that is NP. There is evidence the zeros of the Riemann 
ζ-function is of a geometric complexity class that is NP 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4B-9YspuI . The quantum eigenstates of 
gravity are then “computed” by closed timelike paths in a path integral, 
but where observers only have direct access to qubits in the R_{cr}.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell


The leading term in time difference with radius is the g_{tt} component of 
the Schwarzschild metric


g_{00}(r) = 1 - 2GM/rc^2 


We have 2GM/c^2 = 0.0088m which is the Schwarzschild radius. From R to R' 
we can integrate this 


∫g_{00}(r) dr = R' - R - 2GM/c^2 ln(R'/R).


For R' = R + δr we can approximate this as


∫g_{00}(r) dr = δr - 2GM/c^2 δr/R = g_{00}(r)δr


We take R the radius of the Earth 6.4×10^6m and so we have 


2GM/c^2 δr/R = 1.38×10^{-9}δr


as the difference from δr in a flat space and the curved spacetime result 
from ∫g_{00}(r) dr. For a centimeter this is then 1.38×10^{-11}m. So the 
deviation from a Euclidean space result between R and R' is by this factor. 
Dividing by the speed of light gives a time deviation of 4.6×10^{-18}sec. 


The universe started 13.8 billion years ago and a year is 3.15×10^7sec so 
the universe has been around 4.35×10^{17}sec and so one second deviation 
since the start of the universe would be 2.3×10^{-18}, which is only half 
the result above.


LC

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:29:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National 
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new 
> type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium 
> Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if set 
> at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago today it would be off by 
> less than one second.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2
>
> It's so good the main source of error is due to General Relativity, if you 
> lift the clock up by just one centimeter the Earth's gravitational field is 
> slightly weaker and so the clock runs noticeably faster, that may be why 
> NIST is now working on a portable version of their Ytterbium Lattice Clock. 
> If GPS satellites had clocks this good they'd know where they were relative 
> to the Earth to within a centimeter and so could tell users on the ground 
> where they were within a centimeter; and that would be more than good 
> enough for jet fighters to automatically land on aircraft carriers without 
> a pilot, even at night in a heavy fog in a bad storm with the deck tossing 
> up and down. It would be by far the best instrument ever made to detect 
> tiny changes in the gravitational field, and that would make it much easier 
> to find things buried deep underground. The Earth just became more 
> transparent. It might even be used to detect Gravitational Waves and Dark 
> Matter.  
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Black holes and computational complexity

2018-12-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell
The growth of black hole interiors can be seen in the Penrose conformal 
diagram below.  The two 45 degree lines that meet in the middle are the 
horizons and the two square regions are universes or two different regions 
in the universe. The triangle bounded by the r = 0 line is the black hole 
interior. The separation of the two horizons means the black hole as an 
Einstein-Rosen bridge has this growing interior region where the r = 0 
region is an infinite spatial manifold with infinite or divergent Weyl 
curvature. 

This is in some ways though a mathematical idealization. It may though have 
connections to quantum mechanics, where the bottom triangle is the interior 
of a white hole.  A black hole emitting Hawking radiation has properties 
similar to a white hole as it becomes smaller and hot. In this idealization 
there are two black holes as seen by different causally disconnected 
regions and they are quantum mechanically entangled. the size of the 
interior region that grows is a measure as well of the quantum information 
and complexity of the system.

LC

[image: Penrose diagram for Schwaraschild BH 2.jpg]


On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 11:45:30 AM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
> Leonard Susskind thinks there may be a link between the size of a black 
> hole’s interior (which grows with time) and its computational complexity 
> (which does likewise). 
>
> At the end of the article there’s even a suggestion that the expansion of 
> the universe might likewise have a computational origin. 
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-black-hole-interiors-grow-forever-20181206/
>  
>
> -Mason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Extended Wigner’s Friend

2018-12-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell
This result is really not that different from Bell's theorem on the loss of 
classical probability distribution in the violation of inequalities. There 
are Alice and Bob and their helpers, where if Alice gets a tails on a coin 
toss she prepares a state in |-> and if she gets heads she prepares 
1/sqrt{2}(|+> + |->). Now if this state is entangled in an EPR pair (say in 
the singlet state) with Bob, he then reads an output that is either |+> or 
with a .25 probability each a |+> or a |->. The helpers watching this 
situation will report on the coin toss and the states, which will depart 
from Alice and Bob's observations. This means the quantum outcome will 
disagree with the coin toss results of .5 probability head/tails, which is 
a classical expectation used to prepare the quantum states. 

This result does mean that if QM is universally applied then outcome have 
no strict objective basis, and if outcomes are thought of as objective then 
QM is not universally applied. This indicates there is no way QM can be 
made ψ-epistemic or ψ-ontic in a way that gives either consistency of QM 
universally or that there is an objective basis for measurements that is 
not subjective. ψ-epistemic and ψ-ontic interpretations are then in some 
way complementary ways of thinking about QM.

LC

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
>
> There’s a new article in Quanta Magazine (
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/)
>  
> about a thought experiment that poses trouble for certain interpretations 
> of quantum mechanics. 
>
> Specifically it implies that either 1. there are many worlds, 2. quantum 
> mechanics will need to be modified (as in objective collapse theories), or 
> 3. reality is subjective (solipsism?). Exciting stuff! 
>
> -Mason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

2018-11-28 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker >
>
>
> You're dodging my point.  The "issue" of how we have subjective experience 
> only seems to be an issue because in comparison to the "objective" 
> experience of matter where we can trace long, mathematically define causal 
> chains down to...a Lagrangian and coupling constants or something similar, 
> which is long enough and esoteric enough that almost everyone loses 
> interest along the way.  But some people (like Vic) are going to say, "But 
> where does the Langrangian and coupling constants come from?"  and "Why a 
> Lagrangian anyway?" My point is that when we can give a similarly deep and 
> detailed account of why you think of an elephant when reading this, then 
> nobody will worry about "the hard problem of consciousness"; just like they 
> don't worry about "the hard problems of matter" like where that Lagrangian 
> comes from or why a complex Hilbert space.
>
>
> Why can't I worry about those things? Where does the Lagrangian come from? 
> And why use a complex Hilbert space? I don't think this is the underlying 
> reason for saying that the "hard problem" of consciousness dissolves on 
> solving the engineering problems. Solving the engineering problems will 
> enable us to produce a fully conscious AI -- but will we then know how it 
> works? We will certainly know where it came from.
>
> Bruce
>

When it comes to science I have to back what Bruce says here. All knowledge 
faces the limits of the Münchhausen trilemma, where we have three possible 
types of arguments. The first is the basic axiomatic approach, which 
generally is the cornerstone and capstone of mathematics and science. The 
second is a "turtles all the way down," where an argument is based on 
premises that have deeper reasons, and this nests endlessly. Vic Stenger 
found this to be of most interest with his "models all the way down." The 
third is a circular argument which would mean all truth is just tautology. 
The second and third turn out to have some relevancy, where these are 
complement in Godel's theorem. While in general we use the first in science 
and mathematics we generally can't completely eliminate the other two. 
However, for most work we have an FAPP limitation to how far we want to go. 
Because of that if there is ultimately just a quantum vacuum, or some set 
of vacua, that is eternal, we may then just rest our case there.

If one wants to do philosophy or theology that may be fine, but one has to 
make sure not to confuse these as categories with the category of science. 
Maybe as Dennett says, philosophy is what we do when we do not understand 
how to ask the question right. In that setting at best we can only do sort 
of "pre-science," but not really science as such. Theology is an even 
looser area of thought, and I generally see no connection with science at 
all.

LC


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Schrodinger bacteria

2018-11-09 Thread Lawrence Crowell
The bacteria is in an entanglement with the photon in an on and off state. 
This is a quantization on the large. This might not be Schrodinger's cat, 
but maybe kittens. 

LC

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 6:53:48 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria 
> into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not hitting 
> the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do the same 
> thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger.
>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224/meta
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

2018-10-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:12:42 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:39:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> If a system is in a superposition of states, whatever value measured, 
>> will be repeated if the same system is repeatedly measured.  But what 
>> happens if the system is in a mixed state? TIA, AG
>>
>
> If you think about it, whatever value you get on a single trial for a 
> mixed state, repeated on the same system, will result in the same value 
> measured repeatedly. If this is true, how does measurement distinguish 
> superposition of states, with mixed states? AG
>

For a pure quantum state the statistical variance of a large number of 
experiments reflect a wave nature.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum outperforms classical

2018-10-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell
That is interesting. It tends to go along with my thesis that quantum 
computers can solve NP as P, but we can't receive the readout without a 
classical information system that bounds this in polynomial time. This is 
in effect the BPQ nature of quantum computers. The catch though is that the 
polynomial bounds on a quantum computer are generally much lower with time 
than with a straight up classical computer. From what I understand this is 
known on a case by case basis, but there is no general proof of it.

LC

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:18 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *If you look at the sum-over-histories semantics of quantum computers, 
>> then parallelism could increase exponentially in the number of qubits, but 
>> in actual implementation that exponential growth might not be that much 
>> over linear, and when the number of qubits gets big, problems arise. *
>>
>
> That had been the worry until very recently, it had been feared Quantum 
> Computers would never be practical because as the problems they worked on 
> got bigger the error rate of the components of the computer would have to 
> get better and better until you would need impossible precision to do 
> anything. And until recently nobody had a rigorous proof that Quantum 
> Computers were inherently superior to conventional computers. We still 
> don't know if a quantum computer could solve all nondeterministic 
> polynomial time problem in polynomial time but just a few months ago a 
> proof was found that even if, to everybody's surprise, it turned out that 
> P=NP and even if we had a algorithm that could solve NP problems on a 
> conventional computer in polynomial time there would STILL be a class of 
> problems a conventional computer couldn't solve efficiently but a quantum 
> computer could.
>
> https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/107/
>
> And then just a few days ago a proof was found that the error rate of the 
> components of the Quantum Computer could remain constant as the size of 
> this class of problems increased and the Quantum Computer would still work. 
> That means they would be scalable, if you can build a small Quantum 
> Computer you can build a large one. Even better the machine would work even 
> if the components were arranged in a simple 2D grid, and that makes it 
> far easier to actually engineer such a machine:
>
> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/289.full.pdf
>
> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/308.full.pdf
>
> It should be noted that this has so far only been mathematically proven 
> for a new and exotic class of problems, and nobody knows if they are of 
> interest in themselves or if they are interesting only because a 
> conventional computer can't solve them efficiently but a Quantum Computer 
> can. We still don't have a proof this is also true of the class of problems 
> we are more familiar with but I think most think it probably is. So maybe 
> someday somebody will come up with a conventional algorithm that works as 
> well as Shor's Quantum Factoring Algorithm, but I doubt it.
>
>  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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Tao and Physics

2018-10-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 3:39:17 AM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> My friend is not physicist I think she understand physics on 
> popular-science level same as me. Few days ago she told me that 
> contemporary physics show something about what ancient taoists sages was 
> talking - Tao - unnamed, undivided reality. I was not able to argue with 
> her becourse of my low understanding of physics but I make research and 
> there are in fact some physicist who endorse this view. Some od them talk 
> about tao, others talk about sunyata (buddhists notion) but maybe these are 
> just theirs personal opinion and mixing it with physics is unvalid?  


Fritz Capra wrote a book titled The Tao of Physics. I read it in high 
school and again as an undergraduate. This book is probably one of the most 
reviled book by physicists, though a few think it is good. I am a bit 
neutral. Capra makes comparisons between nonlocality of quantum mechanics 
and the Taoist idea that a vessel holding nothing is a paradox by assigning 
the word nothing to the emptiness in the vessel. In some ways the quantum 
wave or state is something that defies standard existential categories.

Western civilization progressed along the lines of defining separate 
categorical rules to different entities and using the resulting different 
categorical rules in logical constructions. This has its origins in the 
Hellenic notions of mathematical proof based on axioms and the Hebrew idea 
of Kodesh or separation. The merging of Hellenic and Hebrew constructions 
occurred with Christianity, where while this did put a dark age blanket on 
western intellectual progress it did pave the wave for a resurgence later 
on. A reading of Immanuel Kant reveals the pains he took in laying down 
categories. 

Eastern civilization progressed along different lines. For one they 
abandoned the idea of there existing Gods and by extension the concept of 
there being laws or rules that Gods enforce. Plato wrote down the argument 
by Socrates and Euthyphro on this point that is worth reading. Eastern 
spiritual basis is that one must escape the suffering of this world through 
meditative practice that penetrates beyond the separating dualisms of this 
world. This does have some similarities to quantum mechanics that has 
nonlocal properties that defy the sort of categories in Western thought and 
are more similar to Eastern thought.

Where I think things go awry with the idea of Taoism or Buddhism as quantum 
physics is when people say they are the same. We could just as well take 
the dialectics of Hegel and just say that Hegel codified quantum 
principles, and that Hegel was a quantum thinker. What I think is occurring 
in these instances is a sort of similarity in patterns of thought or mental 
realizations with Eastern mystical traditions, and for that matter Hegel as 
well, with quantum theory. It would be a big stretch to say there is some 
quantum consciousness at work here so that the ψ wave is somehow 
manifesting itself in these mystical practices. Bohr maintained that 
quantum physics must have a classical ordinary language description, and 
this description does illustrate how the quantum wave is something we can't 
put an objective finger on. By a similar pattern of thinking the idea of 
Taoism is similar. However, Lao Tse is not likely to have had some quantum 
ψ wave percolate into his brain or consciousness as the basis for the Tao. 

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-09-30 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:02:36 PM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
>
> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse 
> structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide 
> Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>
> What are your thoughts. 
>
>
> Regards
>

 I think it is best to assume pragmatic stance with respect to this. The 
idea the physical universe is ultimately mathematics is a huge category 
mixing that suffers from problems. Physics is an empirical subject that 
tests the workings of a theory by performing observations and measurements. 
Mathematics is a subject concerned with abstract structures and objects and 
their logical relationships. Physical objects move through space or are an 
aspect of geometrodynamics in relativity and they obey conservation rules. 
As such mathematics is used to describe physical systems and to compute 
things. This is different than saying the two subjects are equivalent. 
Mathematics is not an empirical subject, though with computers some areas 
of math have started to take one a sort of synthetic empiricism. Physics is 
also not something that is determined entirely by logical relationships and 
just pure theory. We have some issues of course with quantum gravitation 
and whether that can ever be empirically brought to tests. 

Quantum mechanics is close to being a sort of physical logic. Quantum 
mechanics is close to being a case of MUH, though I would not go so far as 
to actually make that pronouncement. For  those who take the trouble to 
learn about the bosonic string, say by reading Polchinski's vol 1 *String 
Theory* will see this is really pure quantum mechanics according to a more 
complete understanding of the complex plane. This may go further with 
modular forms. Vol 2 of Polchinski's book works with supersymmetry. This 
might be ultimately a deeper description of quantum mechanics. Maybe 
quantum mechanics is just a modular system of automorphisms over the 
Fischer-Griess Monster Group that maintains a conservation of this as the 
fundamental vacuum state. So this all sounds highly mathematical, but I 
would still hesitate to say physics is mathematics.

The relationship between physics and mathematics is maybe unknowable. I 
think of Garrison Keillor with his Guy Noir skits that start with, "One man 
on the tenth floor of the Acme Building searches for answers to life's 
persistent questions; Guy Noir private eye."

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is the velocity of a probability wave?

2018-08-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 7:04:03 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> TIA, AG
>

The phase velocity is v_p = ω/k pertains to the velocity of any Fourier 
frequency component of a wave. The group velocity v_g = ∂ω/∂k is the 
velocity of the overall wave or the envelope of Fourier components.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal >
>
>
> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information 
> transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality interpretation 
> of special relativity, notably well described by Maudlin. Maudlin agrees 
> that many-mind restore locality, and its “many-mind” theory is close to 
> what I think Everett had in mind, and is close to what I defended already 
> from the mechanist hypothesis. To be sure, Albert and Lower Many-Minds 
> assumes an infinity of mind for one body, where in mechanism we got an 
> infinity of relative body for one mind, but the key issue is that all 
> measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally 
> the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed.
>
>
> I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would 
> want to support. In many-minds, the physical body is always in the 
> superposition of all possible results, but the 'mind' can never be in such 
> a superposition, so stochastically chooses to record only one definite 
> result from the mix. In the Wikipedia article on the many-minds 
> interpretation, the following comment might be relevant for you:
>
> "Finally, [many-minds] supposes that there is some physical distinction 
> between a conscious observer and a non-conscious measuring device, so it 
> seems to require eliminating the strong Church–Turing hypothesis 
> 
>  or postulating a physical model for consciousness."
>
> If machines can do something that the mind cannot do (viz., be in a 
> superposition of all possible results, when the mind cannot participate in 
> any such superposition), the Church-Turing thesis goes out the window -- 
> and you might not want to say "Yes, Doctor". 
>

This is my understanding as well. The many mind interpretation says that 
the mind is what splits, or that the mind can only perceive on world at a 
time. The mind then generates the illusion of there being a single world at 
one time.

LC 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Decoherence Theory according to Schlosshauer

2018-08-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 10:16:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> As long as the universe is not resolved into individual subsystems *(that 
>> is, no tensor decomposition of the WF)*, there is no measurement problem.
>>
>> IMO, highly doubtful, or minimally outside the domain of quantum theory 
>> where there is such a thing as measurements, and thus the dualism being 
>> denied as the conceptual solution of the measurement problem. (
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf, page 8, bold added). AG
>>
>
> He does say that decoherence theory doesn't solve the measurement problem, 
> yet he attributes it to decomposing the universe into individual 
> subsystems. Why would the decomposition have that result? Am I misreading 
> his position? AG 
>

This is a long paper and will take considerable time to go through with 
even minimal diligence.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My final word on the MWI --

2018-07-29 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 3:08:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jul 2018, at 20:36, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation the counterfactual does not exist.
>
>
> Here I disagree. They continue to exist in the potential so that it guides 
> the particles correctly. It is empty of particles but still mimic a world 
> with particles from the point of view of possible observers (lacking 
> particles). The branches without particles must still mimic their internal 
> observers correctly to guide correctly the particles. I agree with Deutsch 
> when he says that the deBroglie-Bohm theory is a many-worlds theory, with 
> one branches “more real” (having particles), and the other branches 
> mimicked by the guiding potential. With mechanism, we cannot know if we are 
> in the worlds with the particles or without, unless we postulate, as Bohm 
> did, some non mechanist theory of mind.
>
>
>
>
> There is in that idea on active channel for the motion of the ontic 
> particle.In ψ-epistemic interpretations it is odd to talk about 
> counterfactuals existing or for that matter anything factual prior to the 
> measurement of decoherence. As I have indicated QM is most likely neither 
> purely ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic, so to talk about anything "existing" is a 
> bit strange.
>
>
In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation there are active and empty channels. 
If you want you might define empty channels as counterfactuals, but maybe 
with a different sense than the factual of an empty channel.

LC

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My final word on the MWI --

2018-07-28 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 12:44:54 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> The whole weirdness of QM is that we can measure effects which in that 
> formalism entails the actuality of counterfactuals.
>

Counterfactuals in QM do not have the same ontology as classical objects. 
Prior to a measurement or decoherent process that shifts a superposition or 
entanglement phase from a system to a reservoir of states we might say the 
superposition of a quantum wave is a case of prior existing counterfactuals 
in a ψ-ontic interpretation, such as MWI. In MWI the counterfactual 
continues to exist after the process as well. In the deBroglie-Bohm 
interpretation the counterfactual does not exist. There is in that idea on 
active channel for the motion of the ontic particle.In ψ-epistemic 
interpretations it is odd to talk about counterfactuals existing or for 
that matter anything factual prior to the measurement of decoherence. As I 
have indicated QM is most likely neither purely ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic, so 
to talk about anything "existing" is a bit strange.

LC
 

>
> Computationalism is more than OK with this, as it predicted that for 
> almost all universal machine (that is all except a finite number of 
> exception), the reality below its substitution level is an infinite sum of 
> universal machine, and above its substitution level it is a finite sum of 
> universal machine (to handle with).
> Actually, physical decoherence saves mechanism, and QM, from solipsism. 
>
> Grayson, you seem to dislike the many-worlds or many-dreams, but 
> eventually, with mechanism, all we need to assume is the many-numbers, or 
> the many-combinators (as I will illustrate).  
>
> The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among others: it is 
> the border of the observable from a universal machine viewpoint. A very 
> peculiar structure implied by mechanism and a notion of correct 
> self-reference. 
>
> Bruno
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Proof; Eigenfunctions having different eigenvalues are orthogonal

2018-07-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 7:29:30 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Different eigenstates with the same eigenvalues are degenerate. This 
>> degeneracy can be split however if you turn on some perturbing field, such 
>> as an electric or magnetic field. An electric and magnetic field applied to 
>> degenerate atomic states result in Stark and Zeeman splitting.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Not to split hairs, but what does degenerate mean? AG 
>

Degeneracy is what I defined above.

LC
 

>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:24:31 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node40.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can we have different eigenfunctions with the same eigenvalue? How 
>>> common is this? TIA, 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Proof; Eigenfunctions having different eigenvalues are orthogonal

2018-07-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
Different eigenstates with the same eigenvalues are degenerate. This 
degeneracy can be split however if you turn on some perturbing field, such 
as an electric or magnetic field. An electric and magnetic field applied to 
degenerate atomic states result in Stark and Zeeman splitting.

LC

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:24:31 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>  http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node40.html
>>
>
> Can we have different eigenfunctions with the same eigenvalue? How common 
> is this? TIA, 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  1   2   3   4   >