Re: Crystallizing block universe?

2009-12-10 Thread ronaldheld
I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he
mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory
of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields
correct results.
 
Ronald

On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:

  Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
   http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

 He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
 view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
 setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




Re: Crystallizing block universe?

2009-12-10 Thread ronaldheld
I should have added this in the previous post. it is an article about
time from a different perspective.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1604v1.pdf
 
Ronald

On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he
 mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory
 of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields
 correct results.

 Ronald

 On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



  On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:

   Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

  He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
  view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
  setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.

  Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




Re: Crystallizing block universe?

2009-12-09 Thread silky
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

Yes; I too found it quite fascinating, I was reading it yesterday!

The most I have to offer on it is that it references the Wheeler
Delayed-Choice experiment as sort-of core to their argument; but the
results of that experiment are explained here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611034 by way of de Broglie and Bohm's
Pilot-Wave.

I am wondering, does this conflict with their conclusions?
Specifically of interest, to me, is the raising of Heisenberg as
possibly-contradicted due to this. Though it does seem they say that
it's not relevant, given they (claim) it happened in the past.

I too am interested in other peoples thoughts ...


                                             Ronald

 --

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

UNADVISEDLY FRICTIONAL outspoken INTERJECTION; INTRIGUINGLY preclude,
crunchiness tactlessness.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




Re: Crystallizing block universe?

2009-12-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Ronald,

Thank you for this reference and querry for comments. I recall that this 
idea, of a crystalizing space-time, appears in The Maker of Dune, a collection 
of letters, short stories and essays by Frank Herbert - the Science Fiction 
writer famous for his Dune series. The following are my margin scribblings...
   
 pg.13.  I am happy to see new discussion of Cramer's Transactional 
Interpretation of QM. ;)  I have often wondered what kind of multiverse would 
result from using a completely time-symmetric equation... 

pg. 16.It seems that we still have not gotten past the need to introduce some 
kind of conditions by hand to obtain somethig that resembles our everyday 
experience of a universe. The discussion of scale is also interesting but 
upsetting. Is the quantum behaviour of macroscopic systems such as 
superconducting magnets somehow fundamentally different from that is electrons 
in atoms? If so, how?

pg. 17. Potentiality changes to actuality at each quantum measurement process, 
but some potentialities may remain undecided even as others have transmuted to 
definiteness. Thus we consider that on a given world line now is the moment 
when those aspects of reality become fixed. Cool! We have a definition of 
now but does it stand up to scrutiny?

pg. 18. Would this crystalization's dependence on scale introduce defects 
that could have observational consequenses? Would these differ sufficiently 
from the defects that we expect from symmetry breaking? How do I line up these 
predictions with resent observational results that strongly indicate that there 
is no linear dependence between the speed of light and the frequency of a 
photon?

pg.20. The measurement interaction may perhaps be regarded as an interaction 
between scales. This sounds a lot like a transactional version of Penrose's OR 
idea! Maybe similar experiements would illuminate them...

pg. 21. when quantum effects are significant, the Evolving Block Universe 
(EBU) of classical physics cedes way to the Crystallizing Block Universe 
(CBU). On large enough scales that quantum effects are not significant, the 
two models become indistinguishable. We are left with what looks like a global 
time-assymetry and scale-dependence as an explanation, but such an explanation 
is driven by a need for a global ice cube. 

Is the idea that property definiteness is a purely local phenomena 
contingent of the observational conditions therein not ever considered? Do we 
*really* have to have global definiteness?


Onward!

Stephen

- Original Message - 
From: ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:25 AM
Subject: Crystallizing block universe?


 Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
 Ronald

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




Re: Crystallizing block universe?

2009-12-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:

 Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.