On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must
Well, it looks like Edgar isn't interested in $100 and a bottle of wine. Or
more likely the only evidence he has and can ever have for P-time is his
own simplistic logic. Jason, you're only saying what Edgar has been told
many times over in slightly different words. But he has his fingers in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128
The Internet is to time travel what smartphones are to UFO sightings:
in the latter case, the I didn't have a camera at the time excuse is
harder to swallow.
Of course, in both cases we are hypothesising entities which are
potentially more intelligent than us, so
I knew a brilliant, experienced, standard, agnostic, peerreviewed physicist
and sucessful businessman that studied takions: particles with
superluminical speeds, and the possibility of time travel using them. He
was cheated and robbed by a sect of almost analphabet freaks that easily
convinced him
Poor guy and interesting story.
I don't find that hard to believe at all. I think there's an
intelligence paradox: up to a certain level you are harder to fool,
but after a certain point you may become so aware of the the scope of
our ignorance that outlandish ideas become acceptable again.
A
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames
of
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do
Hi Jason,
No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it
seems.
First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t) coordinate times (that would
be true of an SR constant velocity example, but not the twins' GR
acceleration based example). Their watches show they don't,
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Jason,
No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it
seems.
First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t) coordinate times (that
would be true of an SR constant velocity example, but not
Richard,
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All*
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of
the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how
spacetime emerges from quantum
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Richard,
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
I disagree with this. Everett did
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in
Dear Bruno,
Hear Hear!
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
] *On Behalf Of *Bruno
Jason,
Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I
can make it any clearer. Please, I respectfully ask you to reread it and
think it through.
And there are only 2 frames under consideration in our example. Forget
about all others. Second you are again trying to
Jason,
No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events where I explain this process in detail. You
will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to many fragmentary
spacetimes (entanglement networks) which link and align via shared events.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events where I explain this process in detail. You
will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to many fragmentary
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I would add a (*) on observer role. In MWI the observer plays no
special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the
case for many interpretations where the observer plays some special
privileged
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:01:22PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Which gets us to the more important point. You idealise a handshake as
instantaneous as a demonstration of your present moment, but in fact
those
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I
can make it any clearer. Please, I respectfully ask you to reread it and
think it through.
And there are only 2 frames under
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events
Okay.
Just as a tip, which I think will make things a little easier for others
to follow a conversation, is
Jason,
Taking your points in order.
No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock time
respectively, but it's all experienced in a common present moment which
doesn't have a separate measurable t value of its own. Only clock time has
measurable t values, but they all
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I would add a (*) on observer role. In MWI the observer plays no
special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the
case for
Jason,
I think it preferable to discuss posts under the relevant topic. That's why
I started a new topic. It doesn't make sense for me for a single thread to
morph to many new unrelated topics. That is why your original post on this
subject would have made more sense to be posted under my new
On 1/2/2014 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Jason,
No, your graph is incorrect. As I said it's the horizontal grid lines of
the graph paper itself that represent present time. Where those intersect
the two world lines represents the shared present moment P-time... The
lines are NOT slanted like you have them...
Edgar
On Thursday,
Edgar,
You have not yet answered what I consider to be the most important question
concerning this example:
How old is Sam when Pam arrives at Proxima Centauri?
Sam says 5, Pam says 1.8, some alien might say 4. Is there a definite
answer to this question according to P-time? Is one of the right
Edgar,
I too await your answer to this simple question with great interest. Your
statment that it's the horizontal grid lines of the graph paper itself
that represent present time indicates that present time is a preferred
frame of reference. Specifically, it is the frame in which those lines
In the 1970s, Uri Geller managed to persuade a load of eminent physicists
that he had psychic powers. Physicists assume that you are being honest,
because the penalties for not doing so in science are huge (namely, you
will never be taken seriously again). Geller was a defector in a world of
On 3 January 2014 07:07, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that
you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then
the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on
a
On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are
created.
No, if that were the case it would be a hidden variable and the measurement statistics
would necessarily satisfy Bell's inequality.
Brent
--
You
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at
On 1/2/2014 10:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No, present moment time is NOT equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each
twin through spacetime. Imagine the paths are drawn on graph paper, Sam's points
directly above one another and Pam's in a curve off to the side from Sam's start point
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present
moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are
confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for
one more approach that
On 3 January 2014 09:56, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Now let me suggest another conceptual approach which might make the notion
of Present moment P-time easier to understand.
Ahem, naughty Edgar, the credit for this suggestion should have gone to me
since I've been pointing this
Brent,
No, they aren't hidden variables. Not at all. Read my new topic post
Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events for the
detailed explanation.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:16:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
The spin
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The wave function says everything there is to be said about how
something is right now.
The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right now,
the square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
By not answering, yes.
There is no
On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer too. Funny thing
about science, it doesn't matter who's asking the question, it still needs
an answer.
I also
On 3 January 2014 10:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
Everything you describe above is consistent with coordinate time (which is
equal to the time reported by a clock at absolute rest). The problem then
becomes defining some reference for absolute rest...
You can do it,
2014/1/2 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The wave function says everything there is to be said about how
something is right now.
The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right now,
the square of
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what
was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without
a defined
Liz,
Jason seems to be making an honest intellectual effort to understand the
theory, whereas you appear to be intent on criticizing it on the basis of
your persistent misunderstandings of it.
Jason deserves answers because he's seriously interested in understanding
it.
Edgar
On
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 10:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Jason seems to be making an honest intellectual effort to understand the
theory, whereas you appear to be intent on criticizing it on the basis of
your persistent misunderstandings of it.
Jason deserves answers because
Jason,
I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
consistent with SR.
I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared
present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong
with that? If I had a mathematical way to
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
consistent with SR.
Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an
answer to this problem which exists in SR.
Edgar,
I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam
is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an
orderly or logical manner.
From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri
happens *before
*Sam's 4th birthday. But from
Jason, I have already asked your last question repeatedly, but have
received no answer. Maybe you will have better luck.
It seems that despite Edgar having been repeatedly rude and condescending
to me (and others) he is happy to dish it, out but can't take it, even when
it is merely a note of
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html
I guess they don't believe in the collapse either. :-)
Jason
--
You received this message because you
Jason,
That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present
moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times.
If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different
clock
On 1/2/2014 11:54 AM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 07:07, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that
you're
going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations
about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the
problems it claims to - which implies criticism of the position that MWI
has solved
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present
moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times.
If
Jason,
How do you know From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima
Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view,
Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!? How do
you measure that?
You have to be careful to eliminate SR time
Jason,
An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of
only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing
what when? How are you measuring it to know it's true?
And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR
relative
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
How do you know From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching
Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's
point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th
On 1/2/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 10:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
Everything you describe above is consistent with coordinate time (which is
equal to
the time reported by a clock at absolute rest). The problem
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of
only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing
what when?
I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment
Brent,
Aside from the above two caveats, that seems a good summary of the problems
with the MWI, (which I was vaguely aware of before, but am now far less
vaguely).
I'm not sure what to think about the FTL aspects, as I said I don't
understand the MWI explanation of EPR. If you (or anyone) can
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is
what causes the twin paradox. As Edgar pointed out, time dilation is
mutual, but only while velocities are constant. Your diagram demonstrated
that the straight line parts of Pam's movement could be mapped either
Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
Why does he *need* the common present anyway? Why can't he put a
computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and
just have them communicate
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller
is what causes the twin paradox.
I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox,
but the fact that no matter how you rotate
On 1/2/2014 4:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html
I guess they don't believe in the collapse either. :-)
Quantum
Liz,
Edgar has a problem with your gender
as is well known on other lists.
Richard
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
Why does he *need*
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations
about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the
problems it claims
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller
is what causes the twin paradox.
I would say it is not so much the acceleration
On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the
On 1/2/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations
about it, not
so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the problems it
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just
On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
Edgar has a problem with your gender
as is well known on other lists.
Richard
Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my pretty
little head about his wonderful theory.
--
You received this
On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I
On 1/2/2014 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
What do you think about the idea that the whole course of the universe
was set at
that (near) singularity at the beginning of the universe?
What do you mean by universe? Clearly we don't remain (or aren't in) just a single
possible
On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I sort of see the opposite trend. More and more physicists are looking for
an
information based fundamental theory.
But where is the information coming from? If no where or nothing, this is just a form
of idealism.
Of course in a block
82 matches
Mail list logo
