Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 22, 201

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states > is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to > offer a pl

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >

Re: Raddioactive decay states

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Jun 2018, at 23:56, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - > undecayed? TIA, AG > > > > We “observe them indirectly” by the interferences, which eventua

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:18:25 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus > occurs in that time before decoherence. > > LC > Hasn't the source had ample time to

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/23/2018

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 2:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/23/2018

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:21:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/22

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:52:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2018 12:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I've been struggling lately with how to int

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 12:46:28 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:09:43 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:57:09 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gm

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:25:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/22/2018 3:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of > states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead > simultaneously, or a radioac

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:48:53 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of >> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus >>

Re: Radioactive Decay States

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus > occurs in that time before decoherence. > Is that calculated / postulated if the radi

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:07:16 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le ven. 22 juin 2018 à 00:54, > a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:35:52 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:04 PM, wrote: >>> >>> *​>​Send a check for $5000 payable to Bren

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:35:52 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:04 PM, > > wrote: > > *​>​Send a check for $5000 payable to Brent Meeker. When it clears, I will >> send my check for the same amount* > > > Wow, I just figured out what your real name is! You are A

Radioactive Decay States

Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - undecayed? 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 an email to everything-list+u

Raddioactive decay states

Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - undecayed? 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 an email to everything-list+un

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:25:59 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir > ha > scritto: > > Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in > mind. > > “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives > but *all *reall

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:04:20 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:22 PM, > > wrote: > > *>I found an old version of my resume and gave you the exact references, >> which you found without my help.* > > > I have no idea what you're talking about. I looked and I coul

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:28:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:46 PM, > > wrote: > > *​> ​And Yes, I did write two scientific papers with Carl Sagan.* >>> >>> >>> ​ >>> ​>>​ >>> Bullshit​. >>> >>> >> > > >* How much money are you willing to wager? Put your mo

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:22:53 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:58 PM, > > wrote: > > >> *​> ​I think you should admit that bringing up the energy change of a >> photon in a quantum experiment being caused by the expansion of the >> universe is just plain dum

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:22:53 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:58 PM, > > wrote: > > >> *​> ​I think you should admit that bringing up the energy change of a >> photon in a quantum experiment being caused by the expansion of the >> universe is just plain dum

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:58:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:04:34 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM, wrote: >> >> *​> **> I meant coming apart NOW. Bringing up the expansion rate of the >>> universe when the dis

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:04:34 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM, > > wrote: > > *​> **> I meant coming apart NOW. Bringing up the expansion rate of the >> universe when the discussion is about the behavior of a photon in quantum >> experiment is just plain d

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 1:10:06 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:37 PM, > > wrote: > > > Oh, so now the expansion of the universe is effecting photon energy in a >> quantum experiment? > > > If space is expanding thee is no way a photons energy could not be > re

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 12:53:29 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:54 PM, > > wrote: > > *> If you accept Inflation, the universe is many orders of magnitude >> larger than what we can observe. How much larger depends on the model of >> Inflation one applies. Howev

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:46:15 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, > > wrote: > > *​> ​Does it split into two photons, each having the same energy as the >> original photon?​ * If so, where does the added energy come from. > > > It doesn't need to come from anyw

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:55:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:14 PM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:33:23 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:11:23 PM UTC,

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:40:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 15 Jun 2018, at 12:33, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > > > On 15 June 2018 at 02:55, > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 3:23:12 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:54 PM, > > wrote: > > >> What about it, what is your theory of decoherence and how does it make >>> the CI less dumb? >> >> >> > *Not that I'm a great fan of decoherence theory, but it doest includes

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:33:23 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:11:23 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:42 AM, wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:30:02 PM UTC

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:11:23 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:42 AM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:30:02 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:04 AM, wrote: >>> > *No "but's" about it! That's the 800 poun

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:30:02 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:04 AM, > > wrote: > >> >>> >> *No "but's" about it! That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room that Many >> Worlder's studiously ignore. There's no proposed mechanism to explain the >> copying! They will

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:46:31 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 18 June 2018 at 05:04, > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:43:33 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:43:33 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> why do you prefer the M

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:46:28 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 3:28:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:32 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:07:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/16/2018

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:24:49 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Jason Resch < jason...@gmail.com > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > [snip] > > Regarding preferred bases, both of the papers I provided which began this > thread address that question: > > http

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:02:21 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:14 PM, > > wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> What progress? The CI made no sense when it was first proposed 90 years >>> ago and it makes no more sense today. >>> >> > > ​>​ >> I told you; decoherence theory. >> >

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:24:40 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:29:35 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:26 AM, wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason w

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:28:58 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 5:13 PM, > > wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> Copenhagen which isn’t even wrong. Copenhagen isn’t weird its self >>> contradictory, it says quantum mechanics is the theory of the world and >>> everything must follow

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 5:12:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:12 AM, > > wrote: > > >> *​> ​since Maxwell's equations have advanced wave solutions, why do you >> prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional Interpretation?* > > > I think Jason answered that quest

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:29:35 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:26 AM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, wrote: >>> * why do you prefer the MWI compared to

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> * why do you prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional Interpretation? >> I see both as absurd. so I prefer to assume the wf is just epistemic, >> and/or that we have so

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:46:32 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 2:38 PM, > wrote > > *> Delusion piled upon delusion. If you're so sure about the truth of the >> mathematics you rely on,* > > > I'm not sure of anything, I just think Many Worlds is the least crazy > e

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 3:28:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 2:32 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:07:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 1:46 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:25:20 PM

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:07:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 1:46 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:25:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in uni

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:27:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 2:20 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *The single event outcome in this world is certain. We measure it. Those > in the other worlds are speculative at best, and DO give human beings the > power to create worlds.

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:25:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in universe U, where I had >> coffee. Hadn't I had coffee this morning, you would now be in universe >> U', where I didn't have coffee.

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 5:16:38 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 5:57 PM, > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> *Another universe comes into existence when Joe the Plumber performs, >> say, a spin measurement.* >> > > But a measurement (whatever in the world that means) does not nee

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:08:36 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 at 07:57, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >>> >>> On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 AM UTC, te

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 15 June 2018 at 23:57, > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 A

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 15 June 2018 at 23:57, > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 A

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, > > wrote: > > ​> *​* >> *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro >> objects * > > > If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye > th

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On 15 June 2018 at 02:55, wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 P

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 15 June 2018 at 02:55, > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:30:27 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:55:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:30:27 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:30:27 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe >> , Yasunori Nomura >> >> We conclude that the etern

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:30:27 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe > , Yasunori Nomura > > We conclude that the eternally inflating multiverse and many worlds in > quantum mechanics are the same. Other im

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:04:37 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > > *So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, > is this a problem for QM? AG * >> >> >> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most >> useful basis, but that

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:50:50 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 8:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> * When the experiment ends, that is when the box is opened, the cat might >> still be alive. AG* >> >> >> Which in the idealization means it didn't evolve. >> > > *You can

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:04:37 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > > *So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, > is this a problem for QM? AG * >> >> >> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most >> useful basis, but that

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:38:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 7:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:2

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:05:34 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:36:07 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> >>> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:36:07 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed >>> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed >> any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be >> isolated? AG * >> > > *As I see it, the total system represented by the

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:18:42 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/20

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/2

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 poun

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is > that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of > states for decoherence,

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat >> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fall

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:35:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:5

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:12:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/

Re: Entanglement

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I am not sure this make sense (with th

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always >>> isolated, in some sense. >>> >> >> >> * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:39:45 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> O

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>>

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat implies > that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy (or, if > you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in superpo

Re: Entanglement

[big snip] For Bruno: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 6:50:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *Thanks for the data dump. It's way above my head, so not so far above > that I can't see the virtue of using arithmetic logic as a starting point > for a new take on reality. I might buy the Kind

Re: Entanglement

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 3:19:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal >> Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal > Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found >> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat >> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fall

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > > The SWE does not give

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> >> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat >> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows th

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> >> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat >> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows th

Re: Entanglement

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 12:01:39 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > What happened with your Ph’D? > > > > It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at > the recievability level (I never

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > > Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat implies > that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy (or, if > you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in supe

Re: Entanglement

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was

Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in the latter. S

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To > define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the > expansion

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:52:21 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was a fallacy? >> > > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > > > Schrödinger th

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:52:21 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a >> superposition was a fallacy? >> > > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG* > > > Schrödinger th

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:55:13 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To > define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the > expansion

Re: Classical E&M vs Quantum E&M (QED)

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:28:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What are the main unsolved problems in classical E&M? Are they solved in > quantum E&M (aka QED)? TIA, AG > Does a moving electron, say, interact with the field it creates? Has this problem been solved? TIA, AG -- You

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >