Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 informatio

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 mini

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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, 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 wrote: >> > I di

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 > > sphe

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 5 February 2014 14:45, 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 i

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 5 February 2014 06:24, meekerdb 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 *multiverse* is

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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?

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 surfac

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 proba

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 m

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 p

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 v

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 18 January 2014 19:45, meekerdb 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 God, rathe

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/17/2014 10:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb mail

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löb

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 18 January 2014 18:50, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löbian mach

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/17/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch > wrote: On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 1/17/2014 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: PA is a reality, by itself, indeed an existing Löbian

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 18 January 2014 16:08, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb 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 machine can > grasp i

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:58 PM, meekerdb 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 theory and model here.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 rece

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/16/2014 4:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb > 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 fro

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb 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 of a c

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 17 January 2014 12:42, meekerdb 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 pairs and only selec

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/16/2014 11:00 AM, LizR wrote: On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 14

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 17 January 2014 12:31, meekerdb 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 of a computer

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 t

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 17 January 2014 08:40, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer wrote: >>> >>> (SNIP) >>> Still, the fact remains that if your local realistic time-symmetric >>> theory of physics *is* a dynamical one where later conditions

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: Sorry, I realise that last senten

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 consiste

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> >>> You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two >>>

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two e

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb 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 p

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb > 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 c

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM, meekerdb 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 relationship between

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 va

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb 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 a

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb 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 Pi, and then th

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb 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 arrive and form a sin

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 as

Re: What are wavefunctions?

Thanks. I probably haven't time for the book, but will try to understand the paper. On 16 January 2014 16:47, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/15/2014 5:13 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> By the way, I may have this wrong but

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/15/2014 5:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb 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 generally. I can't s

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb 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 for that subset

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 wh

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 16 January 2014 13:57, 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 > cond

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/15/2014 4:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer > wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 14 Ja

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 univers

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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 ni

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 16 January 2014 01:13, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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 lo

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR wrote: > On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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 >> abo

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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 agai

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal 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 discussing wha

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 fun

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 o

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR 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 quantu

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 microstates

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 ever find a Theory

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 13 January 2014 05:20, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR 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 b

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 moment > given tha

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/12/2014 8:20 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR 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 quantum event

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer 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. >

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, meekerdb 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 was symmetrical

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 12 Jan 2014, at 16:53, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 ph

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR 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 desired, you coul

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 principle preventing

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/10/2014 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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 symmetrical" means

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 11 January 2014 08:52, Jason Resch wrote: > On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark 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 s

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 11 January 2014 06:43, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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 th

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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 o

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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? Ho

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer 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 f

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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 definite value indep

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer 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! > Liouville's th

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: >>> On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Well, most physicists already agre

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer wrote: Locality is preserved so long as no physical objects travel faster than > light. > >> >> I don't think physicists use such a narrow definition--if the equations > of QM were modified so that the EPR experiment could be used to transmit > *information*

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 12:58, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> The expansion of the universe is the most likely explanation for the entropy gradient - there are a number of ways in which it generates

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/9/2014 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer mailto:laserma...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 8 January

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR wrote: > On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer wrote: >>> Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric (well, CPT-symmetric, bu

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> >>> The expansion of the universe is the most likely explanation for the >>> entropy gradient - there are a number of ways in which it generates >>> "negative entropy", briefly some of these are... >>

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 ph

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 06:58, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 fu

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 conservation of phase

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 subscri

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/9/2014 9:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR 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, screams at us that

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal > > > 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 violation is a quite strong

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 > do

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR 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. > > > Th

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:24, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer 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, Because you restrict

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 09 Jan 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 inequalit

  1   2   3   4   >