Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:15:55 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 3:37:19 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/18/2019 2:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *Is it correct to say that in 3-space with the Euclidian metric the >>

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 3:37:19 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/18/2019 2:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *Is it correct to say that in 3-space with the Euclidian metric the > geodesic is the path determined by minimal distance between two points, > whereas in 4-space with

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 2:26:12 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 7:07 PM > wrote: > > *1) Using the EP and the example of an accelerating elevator, it follows >> that light takes a curved path in space (not space-time). * >> > > No, it's spacetime. If a photon of

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:34:24 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 6:06:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> 1) Using the EP and the example of an accelerating elevator, it follows >> that light takes a curved path in space (not

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:34:24 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 6:06:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> 1) Using the EP and the example of an accelerating elevator, it follows >> that light takes a curved path in space (not

Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

1) Using the EP and the example of an accelerating elevator, it follows that light takes a curved path in space (not space-time). Wasn't this known by virtue of Newtonian gravity? 2) Assuming a geodesic is the shortest distance between two *spatial* points on a curved surface, does it follow

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 2:20:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:43:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:03, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:43:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:03, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:03, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:10:06 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > ... the phase angles are responsible for interference. I doubt that > result. Am I mistaken? AG > > > > Whatever approach you

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:17:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:31:06 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 5:04:15 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:31:06 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 5:04:15 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 10:47:57 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:23:02

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 10:47:57 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with DISJOINT >> discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with DISJOINT >> discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 12:10:25 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 12.56 agrays...@gmail.com ha > scritto: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being here > and there

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being here > and there at the same time, like having a non null amplitude of probability > of going through each slit in the two slits experience. If not, you can’t

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Re: Discrete theories of space

On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:20:16 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:42:12 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with DISJOINT >> discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be

Discrete theories of space

Since it seems conceptually impossible to model a theory with DISJOINT discrete spatial units, thus requiring the units to be juxtaposed, do such theories acknowledge difficulty of motion between the units, which might or might not have boundaries? TIA, AG -- You received this message because

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, 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

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:26:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 3:49:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/17/2019 5:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:33:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote:

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 3:49:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/17/2019 5:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:33:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 1:48:57 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:33:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 14,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, 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

Re: Planck Length

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:25:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 AM > wrote: > > *> How does one calculate Planck length using the fundamental constants G, >> h, and c, and having calculated it, how does one show that measuring a >> length that small with photons

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

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

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

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

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: >>>

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

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

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:12:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 3:04:10 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Jan 2019, at 07:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 3:04:10 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jan 2019, at 07:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> *How can you prepare a system in any superposition state if you don't >> know the

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *How can you prepare a system in any superposition state if you don't know > the phase angles beforehand? You fail to distinguish measuring or assuming > the phase angles

Re: Interference of probability waves

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:46:19 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/11/2019 2:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If probability values are always positive and between 0 and 1, how does > one get destructive interference, or constructive interfering probability > values within the

Re: Interference of probability waves

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 11:08:42 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jan 2019, at 11:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If probability values are always positive and between 0 and 1, how does > one get destructive interference, or constructive interfering probability > values

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 10:11:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:07:50 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Interference of probability waves

If probability values are always positive and between 0 and 1, how does one get destructive interference, or constructive interfering probability values within the acceptable range? Brent once answered this question but I have completely forgotten the answer. AG -- You received this message

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:07:50 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:07:51 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Jan 2019, at 07:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:07:51 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2019, at 07:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:37:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:52:27 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:07:51 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2019, at 07:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:37:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:52:27 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:07:51 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2019, at 07:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:37:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:52:27 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:37:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:52:27 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:45:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM wrote: >>> On Saturday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:52:27 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:45:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:46:41 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: On Thursday,

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:45:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:46:41 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:46:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: On

Re: Planck Length

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:39:03 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/6/2019 1:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:53:52 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> To measure small things you need comparably short wavelengths. If you >> make a photon with a

Re: Planck Length

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > There is a related concept, the Planck Mass that also involves the 3 most > fundamental constants in nature, the speed of light the Planck constant and > the Gravitational constant. If you take the Planck energy >

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:46:41 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:46:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 10:13:57 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, December

Re: Planck Length

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:53:52 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > To measure small things you need comparably short wavelengths. If you > make a photon with a wavelength so short it can measure the Planck > length it will have so much mass-energy that it will fold spacetime > around it and

Planck Length

What is the argument for the claim that we cannot, in principle, measure any length smaller than Planck length? TIA, 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

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:33:54 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php > > Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in > the 1990s that marries the

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:13:16 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/5/2019 1:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > The relation is provided by the metric. If you choose different >> coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever) then there >> is different metric tensor.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:36:34 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/5/2019 12:50 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *Still a little murky. Does coordinate

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 6:24:03 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:41 AM > wrote: > > >> *> not all points external to an observer are receding at speed faster >> than light. Still, ISTM that inflation just preserves the temperature >> distribution which exists

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:40:22 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 5:46:18 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred, >> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:40:22 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 5:46:18 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred, >> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? > TIA, AG * > > > Of course. That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from >

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 3:23:54 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/4/2019 6:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM > wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote: >> >> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New >>> York and their odometers

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 1:26:20 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green wrote: >> > >> > David Deutsch

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 6:24:03 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:41 AM > wrote: > > >> *> not all points external to an observer are receding at speed faster >> than light. Still, ISTM that inflation just preserves the temperature >> distribution which exists

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 8:25:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 12:43:17 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:53 PM wrote: >> >> *> Where does the non conserved energy go, specifically the loss of >>> energy represented by

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 12:43:17 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:53 PM > > wrote: > > *> Where does the non conserved energy go, specifically the loss of energy >> represented by the cosmological red shift? AG* > > > If it's non-conserved then the energy went

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:56:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green wrote: >> > >> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual >>

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green > wrote: > > > > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes > are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). > > > > “within each

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:17:34 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when >>> the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it >>> was

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 1:23:19 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM > > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when the universe was 10^-44

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 10:14:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:52 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> > *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. * >>> >> >> No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:43:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:30:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM,

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:30:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>>

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 25,

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM wrote: >> >> >> You can never prove that any physical

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM > wrote: > > >> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we >>> do know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that >>> if the universe is

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 7:05:10 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 6:53:28 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote:

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM wrote: >>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday,

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >