Re: Quantum Foam

On 8/30/2019 5:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: I think Wald says that for the inertial observer it appears that the accelerated detector/thermometer is interacting with

Re: Quantum Foam

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:29:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> >> I think Wald says that for the inertial observer it appears that the >> accelerated detector/thermometer is

Re: Quantum Foam

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I think Wald says that for the inertial observer it appears that the > accelerated detector/thermometer is interacting with the vacuum and > producing the particles around it that

Re: Quantum Foam

On 8/30/2019 4:55 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:36:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 8/30/2019 1:03 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Virtual particles are not directly detectable. It is odd however that an observer in an accelerated frame should in fact

Re: Quantum Foam

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:36:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/30/2019 1:03 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Virtual particles are not directly detectable. It is odd however that an > observer in an accelerated frame should in fact observe them. Accelerated > motion transforms

Re: Quantum Foam

On 8/30/2019 1:03 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Virtual particles are not directly detectable. It is odd however that an observer in an accelerated frame should in fact observe them. Accelerated motion transforms virtual particles into a black body spectrum of radiation with 1K for

Re: LIGO detections that happened yesterday

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 6:32:45 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Puzzling signals seen by LIGO may be gravitational wave split in two > > > John K Clark > This weak lensing

Re: Quantum Foam

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:41:35 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:08 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> Virtual particles are a useful heuristic for evaluating a perturbation >> series.* > > > In the same way the existence of the sun is a useful heuristic for >

Re: The Mistake about Mary (in the Black and White Room)

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Aug 2019, at 20:46, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:06:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I am not sure I understand what you mean by “real matter”, nor which role >> it

Re: Infinities

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:10:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Aug 2019, at 04:33, Alan Grayson > > wrote: > > If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, > is that a problem? AG > > > Is that an interesting problem? I guess so. > > Some theories

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Euclid proved that *IF* numbers have nothing to do with physics then > there are infinitely many primes. But that's a big if. > > *That is false. Or give the reference.* > I need to provide a reference for you to believe Euclid didn't

Re: The Mistake about Mary (in the Black and White Room)

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 20:46, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:06:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I am not sure I understand what you mean by “real matter”, nor which role it > can play for the minds and the souls once we bet on Mechanism. Any evidence >

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:28:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Ito be honest, I have no clue what you mean by “natural number do not exist”. > I can understand that they don’t exist physically, but with Mechanism, we >

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 18:17, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:45 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > When we prove that there is no biggest prime number, we don’t make the > > prime numbers being infinite. There was no biggest prime number "well > >

Re: Infinities

> On 30 Aug 2019, at 04:33, Alan Grayson wrote: > > If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, is > that a problem? AG Is that an interesting problem? I guess so. Some theories in mathematics assume an axiom of infinity, like in set theory, analysis, etc. That

Re: Infinities

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:01:08 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:33:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, >> is that a problem? AG >> > > Responses to this question might be

Re: Quantum Foam

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:08 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Virtual particles are a useful heuristic for evaluating a perturbation > series.* In the same way the existence of the sun is a useful heuristic for evaluating the Earth's future position in its orbit? *> There are no such things as

Re: LIGO detections that happened yesterday

Puzzling signals seen by LIGO may be gravitational wave split in two John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: Quantum Foam

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Is the existence of the quantum foam, with virtual particles incessantly > coming into existence and being annihilated, generally accepted? If I > recall correctly, Bruce was extremely doubtful, claiming it's based on >

Re: Infinities

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:33:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, > is that a problem? AG > Infinity is not a number in the standard sense. It is a measure of a set, or cardinality that does not obey ordinary

Re: Infinities

On 30-08-2019 04:33, Alan Grayson wrote: If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, is that a problem? AG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U75S_ZvnWNk Saibal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Infinities

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:33:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > If there are infinities in mathematics, but not in physics or in nature, > is that a problem? AG > Responses to this question might be entertaining. But the best answer is here: