Lee Corbin writes:
Richard writes
How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
roulette?
SNIP
And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them lucky
which
really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong
queue,
others get the correct one
s evaluation of a website thatreports on the work of some very good physicist, e.g. Zeh, Joos, Kim, and Tegmark. Do you have any substantive comment? Did you read any of the papers?
Brent Meeker
-Original Message-From: aet.radal ssg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Richard writes
How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
roulette?
SNIP
And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them lucky which
really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong queue,
others get the correct one (queuing theory and
At 08:51 PM 5/25/2005, Lee Corbin wrote:
At 09:33 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
Richard writes
How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
roulette?
SNIP
LC: I don't believe that there are lucky people, except as a perfectly
ordinary and expected random fluctuation.
RM:
]BRTo:
EverythingList EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COMBRSubject: Re: Sociological
approach BRDate: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST) BRBRgt;
BRgt; BRgt; QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be
proved BRgt; wrong by future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's
BRgt
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SNIP
NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally *define*
different branches of the wave function by the property of being fully
decoherent. Hence reference
Le 24-mai-05, à 02:29, aet.radal ssg a écrit :
I think I can answer to the whole message by saying no way isn't
always the way. The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory
was wrong because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect
proved that EPR actually worked as
Richard M writes
I remember Plaga's original post on the Los Alamos
archives way back when the server there was a 386.
Most of the methods I've seen--Plaga's, Fred Alan
Wolf's, and others involve tweaking the mortar, so
to speak---prying apart the wallboard to obtain
evidence of the next
At 07:15 AM 5/24/2005, you wrote:
Richard M writes
I remember Plaga's original post on the Los Alamos
archives way back when the server there was a 386.
Most of the methods I've seen--Plaga's, Fred Alan
Wolf's, and others involve tweaking the mortar, so
to speak---prying apart the
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Brent Meeker
Cc: Everything-List
Subject: RE: Sociological approach
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL
"See http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything-List" <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM>Subject: RE: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005
On Tue, 24 May 2005, aet.radal ssg wrote:
See http://decoherence.de ? It was good for a laugh, not much else.
Funnily enough, that was my thought about your friend Plaga, whose paper
is rubbish because he doesn't know the first thing about decoherence,
and fails to notice that his
PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:49
PMTo: everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: RE: Sociological
approach
"See
http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a
laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent
Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Every
On Sun, 22 May 2005, rmiller wrote:
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives (measures). If all possible
worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system should
likewise exist in a
Forgiveness for any typos. I'm in a hurry here. I was going to reply to Miller's message directly, but I see where I can kill two birds with one stone:- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Sociologi
Patrick--
At 05:04 AM 5/23/2005, you wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005, rmiller wrote:
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives (measures). If all
possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior
QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be proved wrong by
future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's suggestions would
definitely constitute a replacement of QM by something different. So would
aet.radal's (?) suggestion of information tunnelling between macroscopic
From: Patrick Leahy
NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally *define*
different branches of the wave function by the property of being fully
decoherent. Hence reference to micro-branches or micro-histories for
cases where you *can* get interference.
Do you agree we
On Mon, 23 May 2005, scerir wrote:
Do you agree we can have branches (or histories) in space
(in a space) but also branches (or histories) in time?
I guess there is an implicit not only in this question :)
You have an atom, excited (ie by a laser).
This atom can radiate a photon in two
xiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510007. Time will tell, but I think history is on my side.- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: EverythingList <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM>Subject: Re: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST
At 07:29 PM 5/23/2005, you wrote:
I think I can answer to the
whole message by saying no way isn't always the
way. The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory was wrong
because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect proved that EPR
actually worked as advertised, however it
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 6:50 PM
To: EverythingList
Subject: Re: Sociological approach
QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be proved wrong by
future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's
-Original Message-
From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM
To: Patrick Leahy
Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0
Subject: Re: Sociological approach
...
More to the point, if you happen to know why the mere act of
measurement--even
RMiller writes
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives (measures). If all
possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system
should likewise exist in a superpositional state. If there
24 matches
Mail list logo
