Re: How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements

If only we were this smart about politics. Brent On 10/24/2023 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: This new technique will allow LIGO to detect 65% more Black Hole and Neutron Star collisions: How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements <https://www.youtube.com/watc

How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements

This new technique will allow LIGO to detect 65% more Black Hole and Neutron Star collisions: How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5lnamXhnfI=204s> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.goo

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

ay, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of >> >>> the Time-Ener

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

s applying a generalised UP to an ensemble of similar short-lived particles. There is no significant uncertainty in the energy of each particle, although it may be uncertain when it will decay. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everyth

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

>> wrote: >> >>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of >>> the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but >>> relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum >>> u

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

>> > >>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of > >>> the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but > >>> relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum > >>> uncertainty. > >&g

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On 15-04-2020 04:20, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch wrote: There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but relatively

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 11:07:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in > the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in > quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > >> There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in >> the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty rel

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch wrote: > There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in > the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in > quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the >

Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum uncertainty. However, can these not be viewed equiva

Re: Probability in MWI as self-locating uncertainty

arroll (arXiv:1405.7577) that probability in MWI can be understood in terms of self-locating uncertainty -- when all outcomes of a measurement are realized in unitary quantum mechanics, probabilities might arise because one is does not know in which branch of the universal wave functi

Re: Probability in MWI as self-locating uncertainty

From: *Philip Thrift* mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> This is strange. This appears here on Everything List when it appears to come from Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group

Re: Probability in MWI as self-locating uncertainty

argument by Sebens and Carroll (arXiv:1405.7577) that probability in >> MWI can be understood in terms of self-locating uncertainty -- when all >> outcomes of a measurement are realized in unitary quantum mechanics, >> probabilities might arise because one is does not know

Re: Probability in MWI as self-locating uncertainty

WI can be understood in terms of self-locating uncertainty -- when all outcomes of a measurement are realized in unitary quantum mechanics, probabilities might arise because one is does not know in which branch of the universal wave function one is located. Kent poin

Re: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Me

to be derived too, not from the wave, but from the set of all computations, with its canonical redundancy. Bruno On 31 May 2014, at 01:09, meekerdb wrote: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics Charles T. Sebens, Sean M. Carroll (Submitted on 29

Re: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Me

Thank you, I will have a look at that. I am all in favour of answers to Quantum Sleeping Beauty problems! -- 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

Re: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Me

: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Me Thank you, I will have a look at that. I am all in favour of answers to Quantum Sleeping Beauty problems! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group

Fwd: Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Me

Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics Charles T. Sebens http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sebens_C/0/1/0/all/0/1,Sean M. Carroll http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Carroll_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 29 May 2014) A longstanding

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

would get from classical probability theory assuming that the uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge and that in reality only ione history really exists. So, you then can't see the difference between all these histories copatible with your knowledge really existing and that they don't exist

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

lacks knowledge? There is no you. This effect will not lead to probabilities behaving in a different way than what you would get from classical probability theory assuming that the uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge and that in reality only ione history really exists. The very concept

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

. That's where this account gets muddled. Who lacks knowledge? There is no you. There is, the one experiencing things here and now. This effect will not lead to probabilities behaving in a different way than what you would get from classical probability theory assuming that the uncertainty

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Pierz wrote: I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the present, if that makes sense. In other words, there may be more than one history that could lead to the current state

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Pierz wrote: I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

wrote: I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

...@verizon.net: On 8/14/2013 6:41 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: I guess I don't understand that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about it in your diary). No, you can't say that you are in the same branch. Just because you are in the clasical regime doesn't mean that the MWI is irrelevant

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about it in your diary). No, you can't say that you are in the same branch. Just because you

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:07:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: But it seems to me that this reset is a magical, impossible operation. If the human brain is a classical computer then that means it's computational state can be reset. But it also means the its physical state can't be reset. The

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

...@zonnet.nl wrote: I guess I don't understand that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about it in your diary). No, you can't say that you are in the same branch. Just because you are in the clasical regime doesn't mean

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about it in your diary). No, you can't say that you are in the same branch. Just because you

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased (although you may read about it in your diary). No, you can't say

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

understand that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you just don't remember why your memory was erased

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 8/14/2013 6:41 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: I guess I don't understand that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

Citeren Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Pierz wrote: I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the present, if that makes sense. In other words, there may be more than one history that could lead to the current state of the world. Let's say

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the present, if that makes sense. In other words, there may be more than one history that could lead

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the present, if that makes sense. In other words, there may

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the present

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

On 8/14/2013 6:41 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: I guess I don't understand that. You seem to be considering a simple case of amnesia - all purely classical - so I don't see how MWI enters at all. The probabilities are just ignorance uncertainty. You're still in the same branch of the MWI, you

Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state

Re: Question for the QM experts here: quantum uncertainty of the past

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Pierz wrote: I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined only

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

On 21 Oct 2012, at 12:52, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ...the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems Formally yes, but the meaning of the uncertainty principle is very different

Re: Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

Hi Craig Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ...the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:19:46 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 10/18/2012 2:16 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Is anyone here aware of the following? http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does it have

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum physics? I'd love to see comments about this. Cheers, Dan

Re: Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-18, 14:42:19 Subject: Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt Dan, I think the implication for MWI is that such weak measurements do not cause the universe to split

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

Is anyone here aware of the following? http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum physics? I'd love to see comments about this. Cheers, Dan -- You received this message

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone here aware of the following? http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum physics? I'd love to see comments about this. Cheers, Dan -- You received

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

also think that most of us are aware of these results. Richard On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone here aware of the following? http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

There was another article about this group's work back in September, at http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394-- it seems as though this is not really about contradicting the mathematical form of uncertainty in the equations of quantum mechanics

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

On 10/18/2012 2:16 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Is anyone here aware of the following? http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum physics? I'd love to see comments about

Re: Uncertainty

it is my fault. Thanks anyway JohnM On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 3/23/2012 11:47 AM, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply - I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about

Re: Uncertainty

, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply - I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about the concept: uncertainty is inherent in whatever we think about, because in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only part

Re: Uncertainty

Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply - I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about the concept: uncertainty is inherent in whatever we think about, because in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only part of the total (see the historical

Re: Uncertainty

On 3/23/2012 11:47 AM, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply - I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about the concept: uncertainty is inherent in whatever we think about, because in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only

Re: Uncertainty

that persons bodies can be duplicated without duplicating their consciousness (at least for a moment or two). But as I said I don't see that this invalidates Bruno's argument which I take to be that quantum uncertainty can be modeled by uncertainty in personal identity. Hi Brent, Could

Re: A question about the Uncertainty Measure

Hi Stephen, Le 28-août-06, à 04:31, Stephen Paul King a écrit : Hi Folks, I have been reading Bruno's wonderful Elsavier paper Thanks for saying so. and have been wondering about this notion of a Uncertainty measure. Does not the existence of such a measure demand the existence

Re: A question about the Uncertainty Measure

Bruno Marchal wrote: In both comp and the quantum, a case can be made that the irreversibility of memory (coming from usual thermodynamics, or big number law) can explain, through physical or comp-physical interactions, the first person feeling of irreversibility. But with comp we do start

A question about the Uncertainty Measure

Hi Folks, I have been reading Bruno's wonderful Elsavier paper and have been wondering about this notion of a Uncertainty measure. Does not the existence of such a measure demand the existence of a breaking of the perfect symmetry that is obvious in a situation when all possible outcomes