Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > and in modal logic it is □p → p. > > > No, that is the reflexion formula, typically not provable in general (for > exemple Bf -> f, wi

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 2:19:48 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > If the ensemble's distribution changes as a consequence of changes in the > wf, IMO there is reason to believe the wf has ontic properties. That's all > I was alleging. AG > ψ-ontology is not consistent

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

I am not going to argue for MWI particularly, though I will say a bit next paragraph. The idea there are retro-causal influences that underlie apparent quantum nonlocality is simply wrong. The Kochen-Specker theorem illustrates limits on hidden variables, which means a measurement of an

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:22:37 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In > weighing in here I might be making an error of not addressing

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:38:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > > Non-locality. As Zeilinger says: "Any explanation of what goes on in a > specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the > whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:30:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > Very interesting. It confirms the christians might have added this when > their integrist took power, as the "golden rule" is a trap, leading to the > idea that we can think at the place of the other, which is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 4:40:36 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > ​ >​ > ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, > > > ​ > ​ >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:20:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:16:07 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:47:37 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > > Collapse would be non-linear and

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:50:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 10:43 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:20:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:16:07 PM U

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:09:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: > -

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In >> w

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You clearly have not grasped the implications of my argument. The idea > that "MWI replaces all nonsensical weirdness by one fact (many histories)" > does not

Re: Feynman and the Everything

The matter might not directly involve this sort of logic. If spacetime is an emergent property of quantum states and entanglements we might instead think this way. I would offer the prospect that very tiny regions of space have instead of divergent complexity they instead approach nullity. I

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and > prey less successful. But in the sense of humans, who have technologically > escaped most of the darwinian pressures, could this idea not improve life

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The GHZ state is a four state entanglement. The symmetry is a bit more complicated. The entanglement is a quotient state and a typical form is G/H = SO(8)/SO(4)xSO(4) in 16 dimensions. This in a rule of thumb way captures the 2^4 possible state configurations. The GHZ state then gives a

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > > support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. > > The evidence favors this

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:47:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

I think this illustrates how an observation is one a deep level a sort of self-observation or about a set of quantum numbers that encode themselves. For this reason there is then no complete and consistent way of reconciling the quantum and classical worlds with each other according to quantum

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

of the year. Cheers LC On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:30:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Dec 2017, at 13:47, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The Leggett–Garg inequality is a form of the Bell inequality as the CHSH inequality. I would say that determinism and locality are related concepts. The two are joined sets with an overlap. It would be interesting to examine this. LC On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-6, John

cosmic big rip

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631550-600-dark-energy-is-mutating-with-grave-consequences-for-the-cosmos/ This is interesting and a bit disturbing. Phantom energy means the vacuum energy density is increasing with time. This means that not only is the universe accelerating the

Re: cosmic big rip

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/7/2017 3:43 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631550-600-dark-energy-is-mutating-with-grave-consequences-for-the-cosmos/ > > This is interesting an

Re: US vs North Korea

Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Bitcoins are used a lot by organized criminals. The block chain system is ideal for moving dirty money. It is a part of this disturbing trend of criminal power rising up. Trump made his money laundering dirty money through real estate. Last year 70% of his real estate transactions occurred

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:15:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 18:41, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:30:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Very interesting. It

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> I can un

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >

Re: cosmic big rip

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 11:46:07 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:43, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631550-600-dark-energy-is-mutating-with-grave-consequences-for-the-cosmos/ > > This is interest

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2017 5:25 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > > My contention is that for a macroscopic object, such as the coin, the > randomness is always deterministic, and due to our lack of knowledge of > the initial conditions. Classical probability theory arose from such > cases, as

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think you're making the unwarranted assumption that the measured shift > in H is not > effected by the cosmological red shift which presumably shifts all wave > lengths. AG > Of course it shifts all

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:47:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> When I took a series of classes in Artificial Intelliegence at UCLA in >> the '70s the professor introducing the material of the first class

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On the stackexchange I presented FLRW cosmology. The important equation is (a'/a)^2 = 4πGρ/3 for a' = da/dt. The parameter a is a scale factor and

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:17:38 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >&g

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:09:19 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

In general a central charge of am abelian YM gauge field has a field rule ~ 1/r^{n-1} in n spatial dimensions. This is important with AdS_5 with 10 dim SUGRA if one has YM gauge monopoles in the spacetime. The 11-dim SUGRA with AdS_4xS^7 is likely more directly associated with the observable

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 8:23:42 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantum encryption. Some of them can > be failed, but only in theory. Well, the last time I readon on this, but > the filed is exploding. > > I guess that *classical* teleportation

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:38:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/9/2017 10:38 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But you don't know which part of the shift of the H is due to > > cosmological expansion, so that's why the method I described seems > > necessary. You must estimate

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/9/2017 6:48 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:47

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:21:52 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > > Unfortunately, it is not the case that you can implement absolutely any > unitary transformation in this way. For instance, you cannot implement the > unitary transformation that would reverse a totally decohered event. Your >

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:01:14 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/6/2018 6:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group < > atvo...@googlegroups.com > > > Δ > No, Susskind makes clear that the Hawking radiation is blue shifted near > the

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:16:13 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 06:19:01PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > But don't you take all arithmetic theories to include the axioms that > say > > every number has a successor? > > Just because every number has a successor

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:39:45 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > > You are probably right. He is wrong about Hawking radiation in most > respects: particularly because he think it comes from vacuum loops near the > horizon -- there are no such loops containing only photons. Hawking > radiation

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> The firewall occurs because Hawking radiation that is emitted is >> entangled with the blac

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:51:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 May 2018, at 03:19, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net > > wrote: > > > > On 5/6/2018 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 2 May 2018, at 02:28, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:09:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Apr 2018, at 18:04, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > With a T a theory that admits diagonalization and for Bew(x) a formula > with a free x,.we have > >

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:02:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: 'scerir' via Everything List > > > > K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the > Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions > on-line. >

Re: Entanglement

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/27/2018 11:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The Copenhagen interpretation is no more insane than many world > interpretation. > > > The CI got a bad rap because some woo-wo

Re: Entanglement

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:13:29 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2018 , Brent Meeker wrote: > >> > *​> ​Or it's proven that a quantum computer is not conscious.* > > > On Apr 27, 2018 , Brent Meeker wrote: > > * ​> ​The CI got a bad

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 1 May 201

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> * an atomic clock lowered to near the event horizon will measure the >> frequency of a photon that is a few ev far from the black to have

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> It assumes? O

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:52:51 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > https://edwardfeser.blogspot.fr/2018/05/godel-and-unreality-of-time.html > The Gödel universe is a net rotating universe. The whole spacetime is rotating, which means the Kerr effect dominates over standard gravitation.

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 7:42:50 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > The answer is right in front of us. Quantum collapse indicates that a > photon must pass through a slit, and become either a wave or a particle. > But the answer gets more complex, with Wigner's 4 body solution, with the

Re: Einstein quote

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:11:04 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:38:12AM -0700, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > *I see. So for Einstein an "inductive method" is indistinguishable from > > naive speculation. AG * > > > > Not at all. Inductive method is

Re: Classical E vs Quantum E (QED)

Such self interactions are the basis for the Lamb shift. LC On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:28:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> What are the main unsolved problems in classical E? Are they solved in >> quantum

Re: Green stars (was Primary matter)

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 6:22:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2018 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > The appearance of colour is as much psychological as anything. We > > would have evolved to perceive ambient light as white - doesn't matter > > whether there are clear skies,

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > I might be wrong here, but my point is that energy occurs in discrete > eigenvalues and we never measure energy in between. With spin for instance >

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

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 6:30:27 PM UTC-5, 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

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:18:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker < meek...@verizon.net > > > On 6/13/2018 3:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker > > > On 6/12/2018 10:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker < meek...@verizon.net > > > > On 6/12/2018

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

y, June 18, 2018 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > How is that any different than simply saying they are computable to > arbitrary accuracy, in the Church-Turing sense. > > Brent > > On 6/17/2018 3:32 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The Schrödinger equation is inte

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

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 2:25:20 PM UTC-5, 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

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

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 4:02:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 12:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 2:25:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: &g

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > From: > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: >> >> >> Later, hopefully soon, I will

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, 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 Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:16:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Lawrence Crowell > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> >> No problem for QM -- one does it all the time. It might not be the most >> usefu

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:29:50 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Lawrence Crowell > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:18:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Brent Meeker >> >> >> No. There's a preferred basis in which this "w

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 10:32:19 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Lawrence Crowell > > > > > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:29:50 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Lawrence Crowell >> >> I can't make a measurement of energy that is something o

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:05:58 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Lawrence Crowell > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 6/15/2018 6:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> I might be wron

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

I have Matiyasevich's paper on the MRDP theorem. I have not as yet read it. I have had this idea that a general scheme for quantum eigenvalues could by Diophantine. This would then be a sort of universal dovetailer of all possible physical states. Unfortunately this is an area I have thought

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

gt; > On Sunday, June 17, 2018, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> I have Matiyasevich's paper on the MRDP theorem. I have not as yet read >> it. I have had this idea that a general scheme for quantum eigenvalues >> could by Diophantine. This would then be a sort of unive

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

There are various animals with numerical and geometrical skills. Curiously some birds such as crows and parrots are very skilled. Dogs have considerable social skills and language comprehension, as I know from being a long term dog lover and owning 3, but they have almost no numerical and

Re: Primary matter

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:19:03 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2018-05-30 11:27 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Crowell >: > >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:25:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> You miss my point that no one

Re: Primary matter

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:25:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > You miss my point that no one, no physicists, no philosopher, starts out > by defining "primary matter". It is your invention as a straw man to be > defeated by computationalism. Some physicists and some philosophers may >

Re: Role of Schrodinger's equation for spin 1/2 particle

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the role, if any, of Schrodinger's equation for determining the > state and evolution of a spin 1/2 particle, written as ( |up> + |dn> ) / > sqrt (2). I don't see how it's applied. I don't think it's applied.

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

I am not going to argue this from the perspective of logic, but rather physics. The grand symmetry of the universe is a set of transformation on a vacuum state that keeps it a vacuum. The vacuum is as close to nothing as we can find in physics at this time. The grand symmetry, which I think is

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 12:01:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> *> My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist.* > > > It seems to me if wormh

Re: Fwd: "Finally, A Problem That Only Quantum Computers Will Ev

The upshot is that with forrelation equivalent to the BPQ problem a match occurs with few oracles that with PH. An oracle is a sort of hypercomputing system outside the Church-Turing thesis or λ-calculus. If BPQ requires fewer oracle inputs it means it is a closer approximation to a

Re: Radioactive Decay States

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...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >&

Re: Radioactive Decay States

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...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>&

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist. There are problems with these types of solutions. The biggest is they requires a source term that has negative energy or T^{00} < 0. This would mean the quantum field that defines this source is not bounded below. This means an infinite well

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

fter all gravity waves are a direct sensing of the > primary evolving dynamics of extreme systems in which our current best > theories fall apart and begin spitting out infinities. > > Chris > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: > My tendency is to s

Re: Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its > significance on John Baez's blog. It agrees with my intuition that the > mathematical idea of "finite" is not so obvious. > > Brent > > This gets into the rarefied

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like > structure? What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much > understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) > attempt

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 8:43:43 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:16:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: <agrays...@gmail.

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

You can look at the paper here

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:40:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > > A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons > or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:33:58 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/28/2018 9:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly >> >

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can halt or not. This is a form of the Berry paradox and similar "unnameable number" results similar to Cantor diagonalization. Such a thing really

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm^{-2} and the scale factor evolves as a(t) = a_0 exp(t sqrt{Λc^2/3}). The factor sqrt{Λc^2/3} ~ 10^{-18}sec^{-1}. For a billion years this is t ~ 3x10^{16} sec and so sqrt{Λc^2/3}t ~ .03 and the scale factor increases by 1.03. The CMB microwave

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 8:45:41 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 6:59:22 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm^{-2} and the scale factor >> evolves as >

Re: Page time and quantum error correction codes

is why failure of the equivalence principle > implies a "fire wall"? Does that mean a high-temperature? I can imagine > lots of ways the equivalence principle could fail. > > Brent > > On 12/29/2017 1:36 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I am curious whether anybody

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 2:28:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 1:03:58 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 8:45:41 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> &

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

I meant to write The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}m^{-2}. LC On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:59:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm^{-2} and the scale factor > evolves as > > a(t) = a_0 exp(t sqrt{Λc^2/3}). > > T

Re: Page time and quantum error correction codes

I am curious whether anybody looked at this. I got more response from a post I sent to this list by accident. LC On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 7:17:13 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I answered an outstanding question on the physics stack exchange on page > time and in

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >