“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just
*impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings
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
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
really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just
On 24 Dec 2017, at 02:31, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:20:27 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08,
On 25 Dec 2017, at 21:41, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U,
which I
> believe
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:44:42 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be
> confused
> > > with the operator by the same name that preserves
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:41:35PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> *Spin measurements are irreversible in principle, not simply FAPP. Bruce
> showed that on Avoid2 IIRC. I think this means the measurement process,at
> least in this case, must be non-linear. If that's true, then
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be confused
> > with the operator by the same name that preserves inner products. AG*
> >
>
>
> *Another correction: the time evolution operator is a
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which
> I
> > believe is linear in t. AG*
>
> Yes, it is linear and
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:49:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which I
> believe is linear in t. AG*
Yes, it is linear and unitary. Unitary operators are linear, but
linear operators are not necessarily unitary. That
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM
On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:20:27 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday,
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave
> > mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave
> mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use Heisenberg's Matrix
> Mechanics. No waves, nothing to collapse. Is this a cop-out? AG
In matrix
On 22 Dec 2017, at 16:21, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34,
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:39:25 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict
>> exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:36:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> That makes things
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict
> exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an
> INCONSISTENCY in the postulates of QM? TIA.
>
Does the
On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/20/2017 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15
On 12/20/2017 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On
On 19 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the
On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/19/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But in fact the box is not isolated.
Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy.
On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at
On 12/19/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from
On 12/19/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But in fact the box is not isolated.
Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy.
The box too is interacting with the environment.
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside,
have to "interfere" to make Digital
On 18 Dec 2017, at 07:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But in fact the box is not isolated.
Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy.
The box too is interacting with the environment. So it's like the
Zeno effect. Although there
On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2017 at
On 12/17/2017 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside,
have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in
cognitive science, so
On 12/17/2017 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But in fact the box is not isolated.
Oh? Just isolate the whole universe. That should be easy.
The box too is interacting with the environment. So it's like the
Zeno effect. Although there is a probability at each impact of
producing a
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday,
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside,
have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in
cognitive science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at all: it has
On 15 Dec 2017, at 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2017 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + |
tails>}, but it starts with a state of
On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December
On 12/15/2017 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from inside, have
to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in cognitive
science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at all: it has to be like
that. Eventually, the "negative amplitude
On 12/15/2017 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + |tails>},
but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions and
multiple momenta,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> >>
>> David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his
>> book "The Ghost In The Atom", but
>> it
>> would be very difficult to perform. The reason it's so difficult to test
>> is
On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 Dec 2017, at 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + |
tails>}, but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions
and multiple momenta, spreaded in the multiverse according to the
On 15-12-2017 00:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 15/12/2017 10:15 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think this argument pre-dates the work by Zeh and Zurek developing
the idea of decoherence. Decoherence remove the oddities of
Copenhagen
as presented above in that it
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> * BUT for a nucleus of a
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:45:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:41:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com
On 15/12/2017 10:15 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think this argument pre-dates the work by Zeh and Zurek developing
the idea of decoherence. Decoherence remove the oddities of Copenhagen
as presented above in that it is not consciousness that does the work,
On 15/12/2017 10:08 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The thing about mixed states is that they are inevitable if you write
the state of a system as a tensor product of the separate states of
subsystems. The separate subsystems are not pure states because of
On 15-12-2017 00:08, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017
On 14-12-2017 22:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 15/12/2017 6:25 am, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non
falsifiable theory.
David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago
On 14-12-2017 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On
On 14/12/2017 11:20 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
So, let's
On 15/12/2017 6:25 am, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, >wrote:
>
I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory.
David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
>
> I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory.
>
David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his book
"The Ghost In The Atom", but
it
would be very difficult to perform. The
On 14-12-2017 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
So, let's examine this more closely. We start with a
On 14/12/2017 9:23 pm, smitra wrote:
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
So, let's examine this more closely. We start with a state that is
a superposition of branches
On 14-12-2017 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 13,
On 12/13/2017 7:38 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:39:12 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, wrote:
>>
Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:39:12 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM,
> wrote:
>
>
>>> >>
>>> Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is
>>> doing the detection?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> >
>> For the nth time,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, wrote:
>> >>
>> Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is doing
>> the detection?
>>
>>
>
> >
> For the nth time, it can be an instrument.
>
Fine, t
he instrument can be in 2 states, the photon
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:51:39 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:36 PM,
> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> All I am saying is that electrons (and all particles) move as waves when
>> undetected, and are localized in space when detected.
>>
>
>
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 13,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:36 PM, wrote:
> >
> All I am saying is that electrons (and all particles) move as waves when
> undetected, and are localized in space when detected.
>
Detected? I thought consciousness had nothing to do with it. Who is doing
the detection?
On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM,
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:04:32 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:25 PM,
> wrote:
>
> >
>> In the double slit experiment, the photon, or electron, or whatever,
>> travels as a wave and goes through both slits in THIS world.
>>
>
> *Not
On 14/12/2017 11:52 am, smitra wrote:
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
Yes, it's only
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> * BUT for a nucleus of a
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:25 PM, wrote:
>
> In the double slit experiment, the photon, or electron, or whatever,
> travels as a wave and goes through both slits in THIS world.
>
*Not if you look at one of the slits it doesn't! If you put a device that
can detect
On 13-12-2017 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good
On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
*BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never
Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.*
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:25:12 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:10:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
I've been asking all
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:10:43 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
>
>
>>> >>
>>> I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave
>>> function. If its not an observer and its not
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> * BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never Decayed
> and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.*
>
> Sure it is. It's in a coherent superposition of those
On 14/12/2017 8:23 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of
magnitude estimate for the center of
On 12-12-2017 23:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude
estimate for the center of mass. What the calculation shows is
On 12/13/2017 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The coin does not start in a state of the kind {|heads> + |tails>},
but it starts with a state of having mulitiple positions and multiple
momenta, spreaded in the multiverse according to the Heisenberg
Uncertainty. The tiny difference in the
On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never
Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.*
Sure it is. It's in a coherent superposition of those states until it
interacts with the environment.
Brent
--
You received this
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> >>
>> I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave
>> function. If its not an observer and its not a measurement and its not
>> consciousness then what is it?
>
>
> >
> It is
On 13 Dec 2017, at 04:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
> He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that
everything that CAN happen, DOES happen.
I don't see how.
I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything
possible
On 13 Dec 2017, at 04:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
So
On 12 Dec 2017, at 13:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 10:47 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2017,
On 12 Dec 2017, at 13:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 10:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 23:15,
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:41:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM
On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent
On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that
everything that CAN happen, DOES happen.
I don't see how.
I pointed out that is inconsistent with SWE to say that anything
possible actually happens. "Possible" needs to
On 12/12/2017 6:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
I've been saying all along that a conscious observer is not needed
to create or destroy the interference
I know you have. And I've been asking all along exactly what is it
that collapses the wave function. If its not an observer
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 2:21:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM,
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
>
> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI,
> is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM, wrote:
>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the
>>> MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur.
>>>
>>
>> >>
>> The
>>
>> fundamental
>>
>> assumption of
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and
>> the splitting occurs with
On 13/12/2017 9:45 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
So Schrödinger's cat was once a coherent state of a cat in a box, and
the splitting occurs with the decay of a nucleus;
*Unlike the double slit experiment, which can
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:14:01 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
> > On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude
> >>> estimate for
On 13/12/2017 2:12 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
Yes, it's only an estimation but it yields a good order of magnitude
estimate for the center of mass. What the calculation shows is that
quantum superpositions do exists at
On 12-12-2017 12:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec
On 12/12/2017 10:47 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 11/12/2017 2:19
On 12/12/2017 10:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno
On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38,
1 - 100 of 674 matches
Mail list logo