Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:01:49 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >>>

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:01:49 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just >>> before

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just >> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's >> illogical to

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:52:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6,

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just >> before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's >> illogical to

Re: Inflation

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > ISTM, that the argument the universe was NOT in thermo equilibrium just > before inflation is alleged to have begun, is extremely WEAK. Thus, it's > illogical to claim that inflation "smooths out" the alleged NON thermo > equiiibrium just

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >>> This really is a well enough explained question. >>> >>> LC >>> >>> Energy conservation is not violated

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:52:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> This really is a well enough explained question. >> >> LC >> >> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >>> energy, you have to

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models. The > expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy > is

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Right. It's a perfectly good question that Sabine doesn't answer. (Of course if there is one world, there is no problem. But no reasonable physicist believes in many worlds. They are deluded by math.) @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:55 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > This really is a well enough explained question. > > LC > > Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

This really is a well enough explained question. LC On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:59:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>>

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models. The expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is creating energy. Jason On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it. Run the code *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s play the coin flip game!*

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 03-10-2019 19:44, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it > > can't even contain copies of the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it > > can't even contain copies of the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG It it's probability were zero would you

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... >> >> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 >> >> Can't one of you please tell us dummies

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's inequality couldn't be violated. Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy? > > None of

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* >> > > > >> Can somebody explain to

Re: Inflation

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:45:41 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift wrote: * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* > >> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would > be conserved on the cosmological scale in

Re: How Many Universes Are There?

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:12, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark > wrote: >> >> How Many Universes Are There? >> > > > 0. > > Bruno > >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:08 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Right. Then the non locality has disappeared from the wave equation at > the start.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:36:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* > > > Can somebody explain to this dummy why

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be conserved on the cosmological scale in a

Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new branched off world requires no new energy? None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but significant question.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. * > >> If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the > >> polarization > of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always > exist in one and only one definite state. > *I still

Re: How Many Universes Are There?

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark > > wrote: > > How Many Universes Are There? > > > > > 0. > > Bruno > *You've turned Tegmark upside down, on his head. But the same

Re: Inflation

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:41:02 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:26:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:52:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-5,

Re: Inflation

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:46:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> In this case I was just responding to Bruce's certainty that inflation is >> mostly a red herring. I highly respect his opinions, but in this case, >> based on my

Re: Inflation

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: How Many Universes Are There?

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark wrote: > > How Many Universes Are There? > 0. Bruno > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM John Clark > wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:24, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > So, the best way to interpret the > multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes > exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 14:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > > > > wrote: > > > > On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 23:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:22 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > My problem with a tiny part of the academy comes from materialist (even > > marxiste) philosopher, and they have only criticise me for not citing Kant > >

Re: Quantum Computing News

GPUs are used to execute computational physics programs, for example (and deep-net learning programs, of course). @philipthrift @philipthrift On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:33:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > No need to wait for the future, almost all computers now have a GPU to > handle

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:04:08 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > *how did the extra matter come from?* > > > Unlike the second law of thermodynamics which is based on logic and > observation the first law is based on