Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:35 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:44 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: ... Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities given by ignorance of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 6:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:29:17 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 12/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct answers in those classical situations. If you do not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:44 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: ... Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event with

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: >> > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct answers in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38,

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > *IIUC, you're saying that tensors transform covariantly, that is, > independent of coordinate system, but you haven't addressed my question why > Einstein would think accelerating frames are equivalent, or why a theory

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 10:30 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/11/2017 2:19 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Field Equations? It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic paths in spacetime, so the apparent acceleration falling

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:09:19 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/10/2017 5:25 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 10:30 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:43:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2017 8:49 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? > > > It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:41:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's >> Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 12:11 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 20:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:26:32 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, wrote: > > ​> ​ >> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, >> is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. >> > > The

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 9:14:09 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:06:00PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > > covariant theory for accelerating frames when an observer inside

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 20:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2017 5:25 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:06 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > covariant theory for accelerating frames > ​The speed of light doesn't change even for an accelerating observer ​nor does the spacetime distance between

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11 Dec 2017, at 03:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 5:23 PM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of quantum and thermal fluctuations at room

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:06:00PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > Excellent summary. TY. But why would Einstein think there could be a > covariant theory for accelerating frames when an observer inside such a > frame can do measurements to confirm acceleration and differences with >