Re: "The Span of Infinity"

Bruno Marchal wrote: This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores determinacy and locality in the 3p big "physical" picture. In the MW theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without using anything non local, or instantaneous. I took Aspect experiment

Re: Seeing without seeing...

Are you aware of the Paul-Pavicic "bomb" detector? http://cds.cern.ch/record/395858/files/9908023.pdf It is most easily thought of as non-local in time. Brent On 11/1/2014 3:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nice! (sorry for bumping this, but I can't resist). I think it is the same principle as t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Peter, On 01 Nov 2014, at 12:25, Peter Sas wrote: I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I found very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond me), but that I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle of moving to a new house. I will

Re: Seeing without seeing...

Nice! (sorry for bumping this, but I can't resist). I think it is the same principle as the one used in counterfactual computing. Where you get a result of a computation without making your computer do any work except for the switch. It is generalized also Elizur-Vaidman technic to detect

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

On 31 Oct 2014, at 20:23, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy. Why not particles?

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

On 31 Oct 2014, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy. Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type of n

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

JM to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, so you can decry a 'possibility' of such? Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'? JM On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > Sent

Fwd: Fw: the physics arXiv blog

Random Image Experiment Reveals The Building Blocks of Human Imagination -- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM Subject: Fw: the physics arXiv

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Bruno, I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I found very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond me), but that I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle of moving to a new house. I will get back in touch with you later to discuss mac

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory. A basic feature of string theory is that a number of dimensions curl up into ultra-fine particles of space called Calabi-Yau Manifolds CYMs. Being an array rigid particles in space, we hypothesize that they form a Bose-Einstein C

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: > Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle > interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics > > > Read more at:  > http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theo