On 05 Feb 2014, at 02:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that
the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of
the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the
On 04 Feb 2014, at 07:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 10:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:44:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Layzer of course didn't know about the holographic principle, which
implies that the maximum possible entropy increases in proportion to
the
On 2/3/2014 11:49 PM, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the information in a
universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble sphere, could it be that the
information in the /multiverse/ is proportional to the volume of the Hubble sphere?
On 5 February 2014 06:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:49 PM, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the information in the
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the information in the *multiverse* is
proportional to the volume of
On 5 February 2014 14:45, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the
Hubble
sphere, could it
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the
Hubble
sphere,
I don't know about a summary, but the whole book is available here:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf
On 5 February 2014 17:58, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 06:42:14PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I don't know about a summary, but the whole book is available here:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf
Thanks Liz. I should also add that I was alluding to the zero
information principle (Tegmark may call this the minimal
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:44:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Layzer of course didn't know about the holographic principle, which
implies that the maximum possible entropy increases in proportion to
the surface area of the Hubble sphere rather than the volume. Vic
Stenger has noted that if you
On 2/3/2014 10:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:44:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Layzer of course didn't know about the holographic principle, which
implies that the maximum possible entropy increases in proportion to
the surface area of the Hubble sphere rather than the
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:16:15PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 10:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:44:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Layzer of course didn't know about the holographic principle, which
implies that the maximum possible entropy increases in
On 2/3/2014 11:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:16:15PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 10:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:44:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Layzer of course didn't know about the holographic principle, which
implies that the
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the information in the *multiverse* is
proportional to the volume of the Hubble sphere?
(Although I guess the multiverse
On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me.
Why should particle
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:31, LizR wrote:
Everything else I've said on this subject has been in response to
people trying to argue that physics is not time symmetric. So far
all such arguments have been a variant on the second law says so
and my response has been a variant on the second law
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löbian machine, and PA talks about a
reality which is vaster than PA, and that no machine can grasp in its entirety. You
confuse theory and model here.
You can't kick Peano's axioms.
Brent
--
You
On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löbian machine, and
PA talks about a reality which is vaster than PA, and that no mac
hine can grasp in its entirety. You confuse
On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löbian machine, and PA
talks about a reality which is vaster than PA,
On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA is a
On 18 January 2014 18:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA is a
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
PA
On 1/17/2014 10:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The laws of arithmetic prevent you from writing down more than 2 distinct
factors of 17.
17 = (17/4)*4
I've got a million of'em.
... using integers, which we know were created by
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time
and space, at least when I tend to believe in comp (of course I
*know* nothing).
QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two emitters
with polarizers and a detector at which you post-select
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your
hyperdeterminism objection is an objection to block universes
generally. I can't see how the big crunch (or timelike infinity)
being a boundary condition
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:05, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why
should particle properties conform to what a computer's random
number generator outputs, and then the digits of Pi, and then the
binary expansion of the square root of 2, all
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It [entropy] is NOT the log of the number of ways a macro-state could
form. That would be ambiguous in any case (do different order of events
count as different ways?
Yes obviously.
the Boltzmann formula shows the
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle
properties
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in
On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in fact
On 1/16/2014 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that's my point. Price make a logical point, though. But we have to abandon QM for
QM + a lot of extra-information to select one reality.
In that case why not come back to Ptolemeaus. The idea that it is the sun which moves in
the sky is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR
On 17 January 2014 08:40, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
(SNIP)
Still, the fact remains that if your local realistic time-symmetric
theory of physics
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment you
don't
use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical instantiation as
calculated in the registers of a computer or written ink on a page.
And what is
On 17 January 2014 12:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical
instantiation as calculated in the registers
On 1/16/2014 11:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM,
On 17 January 2014 12:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You do use both in the forward case, but people kind of slide over the
initial condition which is that you produce two particles with net-zero
spin. It might seem more symmetric if we did the forward case by creating
a lot of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical
instantiation as calculated in the
On 1/16/2014 4:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you
don't use
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to
argue about, so let's try again.
Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time
symmetry of
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's
being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so
let's try again.
Now how about
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by
someone who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant
loopholes to argue about,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's
On 1/15/2014 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time and space, at least
when I tend to believe in comp (of course I *know* nothing).
QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this to select one branch by boundary
condition, is
On 16 January 2014 01:13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your hyperdeterminism objection
is an objection to block universes generally. I can't see how the big crunch (or
timelike infinity) being a boundary condition on the universe is a problem in a block
universe
On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your
hyperdeterminism objection is an objection to block universes generally.
I can't see how the big crunch (or timelike infinity) being a
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle properties conform to what a computer's random number generator
outputs, and then the digits of Pi, and then the binary expansion of the
square root of 2, all variously as the experimenters change the knobs as to
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two emitters
with polarizers and a detector at which you post-select only those
particles that arrive and form a singlet. Then you will find that the
correlation counts
On 1/15/2014 5:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your hyperdeterminism
objection is an objection to block universes
Thanks. I probably haven't time for the book, but will try to understand
the paper.
On 16 January 2014 16:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 5:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should particle
properties conform to what a computer's random number generator outputs, and then the
digits of Pi, and then the binary expansion of the square root of 2, all variously
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two emitters with
polarizers and a detector at which you post-select only those particles
that
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle properties conform to what a computer's random number generator
outputs, and then the digits of
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
possible mathematical universe
Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
On 1/14/2014 8:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in
at this
moment given that we only know the macrostate
We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for
example, even contain
On 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
possible
On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at
the quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
device
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's
being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so
let's try again.
Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time symmetry
of fundamental physics could account for the results
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrot
In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge of
the microstate.
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know better.
And in quantum physics, there is nothing in
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a
quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
On 12 Jan 2014, at 16:53, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrot
In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your
knowledge of the microstate.
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know
better.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not sure what time is symmetrical means to you.
The term is self evident.
It's the equations of dynamical evolution that are t-symmetric in physics
Yes, time symmetrical laws of physics would usually mean that time
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrot
In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge
of the microstate.
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that,
On 1/12/2014 8:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The entropy is defined not in terms of some vague notion of the number of
ways the system could have gotten into its present microstate, but rather
as the number of possible microstates the system might be in at this
On 13 January 2014 05:20, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device
a
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a fundamental law of physics in
itself,
Good, I agree.
rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence of certain features
of the fundamental laws.
And of the initial conditions!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and relistic
if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so how can realism
hold? How can the outcome of a coin flip today have a
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a fundamental law of physics in
itself,
Good, I agree.
rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence of
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists,
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so
On 11 January 2014 06:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so how
On 11 January 2014 08:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic
On 1/10/2014 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and relistic
if time
symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical
I'm not sure what time is
2014/1/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time]
symmetries
If so then time's arrow, that is to say time's asymmetry, is not
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
All the physicists I know regard the second law of thermodynamics as a
statistical, not fundamental, law.
Exactly, and because statistics is based on pure logic and not on the
trendy physical theory of the day if you asked
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black cells is always infinite, so I
don't see how you can do any ratios.
John K
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that his inequality was not consistent
with Quantum
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe,
from cosmology to cooking, screams at us that time is NOT symmetric.
Not at the quantum level,
If so then obviously the
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
I know.
The only thing in the entirety f physics that isn't based on time
On 09 Jan 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course
On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the
ratio of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black cells is always infinite,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time]
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
to me, the Bell's inequality experimental violation is a quite strong
evidence for MW, that is QM-without collapse.
To me Bell's inequality experimental
On 1/9/2014 9:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe,
from
cosmology to cooking,
On 1/9/2014 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
That and the equations of cosmology.
The equations of cosmology, Einsteins or Wheeler-Dewitt, are T-symmetric. You seem to
have confused the equations of evolution and the boundary conditions.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
You've got it backwards, there is no fundamental law of physics concerning
the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
You've
On 10 January 2014 06:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
I know.
On 1/9/2014 2:26 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Liouville's theorem is derived in deterministic classical mechanics. If you take a
volume of phase space, each point in that volume is a specific microstate, and if you
evolve each microstate forward for some time T using the deterministic equations of
1 - 100 of 323 matches
Mail list logo
