Change of pace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZX_XCYokQo -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:10:23 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:52:39 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 11:41:15 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:58:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 10:27:19 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely >>> no effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But >>> isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG >>> >>> >>> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the >>> different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The >>> relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall >>> phase >>> angle is irrelevant. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for >> *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path >> lengths, which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I >> remain confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation >> to >> relative phase angles. AG >> > > > Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen > locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general > direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of > those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen > locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence > the > light and dark lines on the screen. > > * UCN: unit complex numbers [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group ] > > "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative > group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit > circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." > > - pt > Thanks, but I don't think you understand the issue I raised. I discussed two ways to apply relative phases, which results in different probabilities. AG >>> >>> I don't how "relative" helps with anything, but a phase is what it is: >>> >>> A physical basis for the phase in Feynman path integration >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411005 >>> >>> - pt >>> >> >> The Stackexchange links illustrate global vs relative phases. AG >> > > I don't have any more to add, but relative phases are covered in an > introduction to the PI. > > Path Integral Methods and Applications > > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004090 > > These lectures are intended as an introduction to the technique of path > integrals and their applications in physics. > > - pt > The inconsistency, if it exists, occurs in Wave Mechanics, not PI formulation. AG > >>> >> -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:52:39 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 11:41:15 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:58:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 10:27:19 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no >> effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But >> isn't >> this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG >> >> >> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the >> different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The >> relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall >> phase >> angle is irrelevant. >> >> Brent >> > > The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for > *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path > lengths, which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I > remain confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation > to > relative phase angles. AG > Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence the light and dark lines on the screen. * UCN: unit complex numbers [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group ] "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." - pt >>> >>> Thanks, but I don't think you understand the issue I raised. I discussed >>> two ways to apply relative phases, which results in different >>> probabilities. AG >>> >> >> I don't how "relative" helps with anything, but a phase is what it is: >> >> A physical basis for the phase in Feynman path integration >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411005 >> >> - pt >> > > The Stackexchange links illustrate global vs relative phases. AG > I don't have any more to add, but relative phases are covered in an introduction to the PI. Path Integral Methods and Applications https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004090 These lectures are intended as an introduction to the technique of path integrals and their applications in physics. - pt > >> > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 11:41:15 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:58:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 10:27:19 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no > effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't > this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG > > > The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the > different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The > relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall > phase > angle is irrelevant. > > Brent > The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path lengths, which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I remain confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation to relative phase angles. AG >>> >>> >>> Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen >>> locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general >>> direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of >>> those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen >>> locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence the >>> light and dark lines on the screen. >>> >>> * UCN: unit complex numbers [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group >>> ] >>> >>> "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative >>> group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit >>> circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." >>> >>> - pt >>> >> >> Thanks, but I don't think you understand the issue I raised. I discussed >> two ways to apply relative phases, which results in different >> probabilities. AG >> > > I don't how "relative" helps with anything, but a phase is what it is: > > A physical basis for the phase in Feynman path integration > > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411005 > > - pt > The Stackexchange links illustrate global vs relative phases. AG > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:58:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 10:27:19 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle is irrelevant. Brent >>> >>> The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for >>> *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path lengths, >>> which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I remain >>> confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation to >>> relative phase angles. AG >>> >> >> >> Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen >> locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general >> direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of >> those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen >> locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence the >> light and dark lines on the screen. >> >> * UCN: unit complex numbers [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group >> ] >> >> "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative >> group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit >> circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." >> >> - pt >> > > Thanks, but I don't think you understand the issue I raised. I discussed > two ways to apply relative phases, which results in different > probabilities. AG > I don't how "relative" helps with anything, but a phase is what it is: A physical basis for the phase in Feynman path integration https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411005 - pt -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 10:27:19 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no >>> effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't >>> this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG >>> >>> >>> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the >>> different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The relative >>> angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle is >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for >> *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path lengths, >> which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I remain >> confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation to >> relative phase angles. AG >> > > > Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen > locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general > direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of > those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen > locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence the > light and dark lines on the screen. > > * UCN: unit complex numbers [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group ] > > "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative > group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit > circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." > > - pt > Thanks, but I don't think you understand the issue I raised. I discussed two ways to apply relative phases, which results in different probabilities. AG -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?
On 1/14/2019 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist substitution level. Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units. Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case. Are you pulling my leg, Bruno? h=1 action c=1 speed G=1 gravitate I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI = 1, too. So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in that units. meter = 6.188e34 [hbar*G/c^3]^0.5 second = 1.855e43 [hbar*G/c^5]^0.5 Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or h-bar? E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this? You can't measure h or c in SI units; they are defined constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_SI_base_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Particle_accelerator I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And I am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in case that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real number is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is chosen. It's not a matter of units. Units are arbitrary. The question is what are the dimensions...and that is theory dependent. In Newtonian physics, length and duration, were dimensionally different. In relativity they have the same dimensionality; so it makes sense to rotate spacetime by a Lorentz transformation. So to answer a question like, "Is h computable" you have to have a theory of physics that relates the value of h to other things...in your theory, to things consciously observable. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: UDA and the origin of physics
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:22:16 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:08, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > My only link here is to my notebook: > https://codicalist.wordpress.com/contents/ > 102 notes so far. What I've though of is there somewhere. > > > But in summary I adopt: > > - an *unconventional computationalism* (where psychical/experiential > modalities are entities of machine operation, vs. just logical/numerical > modalities) > > > I can appreciate this. The universal number do appreciate this! The main > problem of the use of modal logic in philosophy is that there are too many > of them, but then with mechanism, we got a filter on them, and get the > imposed (by incompleteness) logics G and G* and their intensional variants, > which are very rich, and explains what there is a physical universe that we > can observe. Now, that physical universe loses its ontology, so we are back > to Plato (versus Aristotle’s materialism, for which there is no evidence at > all). > > > > > - a *PLTOS* (program-language-translator/compiler-object-substrate) > framework, where conventional PLT - programming language theory - is > extended to substrate-dependency, resulting in an (unconventional) UPLT > > > How could a (universal) machine distinguish a substance from an oracle, or > from a more complex universal number? That seems as much impossible as to > be able to know that we are not dreaming. But we can know that we are > “dreaming", and nature confirms that position. “Dreaming” is in quote, > because it requires infinitely many brains/representation-in-arithmetic, > and is different from one specific dream made by one machine. The physics > comes from the first person statistical interference between those dreams. > > Bruno > > > > I don't know if goo computers* can solve NP-hard problems in linear time, or if psychical joins physical-informational in programming semantics of biocomputers, but we'll see ... * https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a25686417/amoeba-math/ - pt -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: UDA and the origin of physics
On 1/14/2019 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The physics comes from the first person statistical interference between those dreams. Where can this "person" be to make a statisical inference, if there are only the dreams? Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:03 AM Russell Standish wrote: *> The Planck constant is, like the speed of light c, a unit conversion > factor. In natural units, it is 1 (or at least ℏ is set to 1).* That just restates the mystery using different words because natural units are based on physical constants. That restatement simplifies things in some circumstances but it has disadvantages, if you just use natural units in your equations you're throwing away information. For the equation X/Y=1 X and Y can have a infinite number of values and the equation is still mathematically true, but if X and Y are physical universal constants then you might want to know the specific 2 values out of that infinity that also make it physically true. If all I know is 1 there is no way I can get back X and Y, but if I know X and Y I can always get 1. John K Clark > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist substitution level. >>> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units. >> Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly >> non-computable, but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case. > > Are you pulling my leg, Bruno? h=1 action c=1 speed G=1 gravitate I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI = 1, too. So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in that units. Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or h-bar? E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this? I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And I am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in case that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real number is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is chosen. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: UDA and the origin of physics
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:08, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:22:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Jan 2019, at 23:36, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:41:19 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:40, Philip Thrift > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 5:24:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 11:30, Philip Thrift > wrote: On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:03:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:50, Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:54:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 10 Jan 2019, at 19:16, Philip Thrift > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:36:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 15:13, Philip Thrift > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:06:08 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 6 Jan 2019, at 22:27, Philip Thrift > wrote: Why - in numerical reality (UD) - can't there be vampires, werewolves, that sort of things? They can certainly be "created" in computer simulations of stories of them … >>> >>> Exactly, that is why we need to recover physics by a notion of >>> “bettable”. If you see a vampire, not explained by the notion of >>> observable, you can infer that either: >>> >>> Mechanism is false, or >>> You are dreaming, or >>> You belong to a “malevolent” simulation (à-la Bostrom, made by angry >>> descendent who want to fail us on reality). >>> >>> Fortunately, we don’t see vampires, and up to know, thanks to QM, we >>> see exactly what mechanism predicts. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Seth Lloyd of course says the universe is a quantum computer. >> >> That would entail Mechanism, but Mechanism entails that the physical >> universe is not a quantum computer, unless our substitution level is so >> low that we need to emulate the whole physical reality (not just the >> observable one) to get “my” consciousness. The term “universe” is also >> problematical to me. >> >> >> >> >>> But what if there are qualia in addition to (or combined with) quanta >>> as the fundamental elements of nature. >> >> You can always speculate a non existing theory to “contradict” an >> existing theory. Why assumes something when we can explain it without >> assuming it. What if the thermodynamic of the car motion works only if >> invisible horses pull the car? >> >> Nature is also a imprecise term. All my scepticism on the existence of >> nature comes from the observation of nature. The physical science are >> not the metaphysical science, unless we postulate (weak) materialism, >> which is inconsistent with mechanism. >> >> >> >> >>> Then the quantum computer - a purely quantum information processing >>> (QuIP) machine - needs to be upgraded to a qualium(+quantum) >>> experience(+information) processing (QuEP) machine. >> >> With mechanism, the qualia are “easily” explained by the necessary >> variant of provability logic in G*. To add “material” to this would >> entail the existence of infinitely many p.zombie in arithmetic, and >> makes both consciousness and matter into irreductible mystery. What is >> the goal? >> >> >> >>> >>> The universe (now a QuEP machine) could have conscious beings who make >>> up stories about vampires and werewolves. >> >> The arithmetical universe? Yes. Necessarily so with the computationalist >> hypothesis. >> >> Some of your remark shows that you have not studied my contribution. To >> avoid repetition, it might be useful to study it. Just criticising a >> conclusion because we have another theory is not that much interesting, >> especially when the “other theory” is not presented in a specific way >> (as your use of many links illustrates). >> >> All what I can say is that you are logically coherent: you believe in >> matter and you believe that mechanism is false. But the empirical facts >> go in the opposite direction. The empirical test of the existence of >> primary matter that I have given fails up to now.The world would be >> Newtonian, Mechanism would be judged reasonably refuted. Gödel + >> EPR-Everett saves Mechanism. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think your theory refutes the existence of matter. (That would >> be a surprise to materials scientists, fro example.) > > > When I first made the theory public, the
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:53:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no >> effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't >> this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG >> >> >> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the >> different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The relative >> angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle is >> irrelevant. >> >> Brent >> > > The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for > *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path lengths, > which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I remain > confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation to > relative phase angles. AG > Each path going to screen has a UCN* (unit complex number). For screen locations that get their paths with UCNs that are in the same general direction (as a vector in the complex plane, angle or phase), the sum of those UCNs will be a complex number with a big length. For other screen locations, the path UCNs when summed will cancel each other out. Hence the light and dark lines on the screen. * UCN: unit complex numbers [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group ] "In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, that is, the unit circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers." - pt -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 6:36:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote: > > *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, >> alpha.* >> > > No, he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a > value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't > know > and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure > number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how > the diagrams should operate. > > > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c. Those three values are > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory. > The > calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment. > A > correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence > the > occurence of c in the denominator). The anamolous magnetic moment can be > measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured > values > of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the > relativistic > effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with > measurement > is significant. > > Brent > Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization. >>> >>> Do you really think that that is relevant? How? >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' >> + δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of >> adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant >> is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is >> the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e >> from all radiative corrections possible. >> > > > I think everyone else is aware that the fine structure constant we are > talking about is the zero energy limit of the running coupling constant. > The infinite renormalisation terms are subtracted from the bare charge to > give the experimental result. Only the zero energy measured value has > physical significance at low energies. > > Bruce > There is this alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McGoveran#Discrete_Physics "In 1988, [David McGoveran developed] methods to develop a new derivation of the Fine Structure Spectrum of Hydrogen, which was further developed and published with H.P. Noyes. In later work, the approach was shown to support Feynman sum-over-paths in 1+1 dimensions and gave the solution to the Dirac equation (Green's function). Noyes has cited McGoveran's calculation of the Sommerfeld-Dirac formula and corrections to both the* combinatorial hierarchy computation of the fine structure and gravitational consta*nts as convincing him that the evolving combinatorial hierarchy construction could be the starting point for a new physics and physical cosmology." - pt -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no > effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't > this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG > > > The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the > different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The relative > angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle is > irrelevant. > > Brent > The Stackexchange links affirm the existence of interference for *relative* phase angles, but say nothing about different path lengths, which is the way I've previously thought of interference. So I remain confused on the subject of quantum interference and its relation to relative phase angles. AG -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Coherent states of a superposition
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no > effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But isn't > this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG > > > The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles for the > different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. The relative > angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle is > irrelevant. > > Brent > *Here are two links from Stackexchange which show that the global phase angle does not effect the interference, but that relative phase angles do, which is what you're saying. * * https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177588/the-meaning-of-the-phase-in-the-wave-function* *https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/275890/does-overall-phase-matter?noredirect=1&lq=1* *But I chose to express the wf as a superposition of orthonormal eigenfunctions, each multiplied by a probability amplitude and an arbitrary relative phase angle. See recent posts. Then I calculated the probability of measuring the ith eigenvalue by calculating the norm squared of the inner product of the wf with the ith eigenfunction, applying one of the postulates of QM. Using this calculation, the probability of measuring the ith eigenvalue does NOT depend upon the relative phase angles. AG* -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
